Samples, Sources, Space: Decomposing Data Scale in Spatially Structured Representation Learning of Human Brain Microarchitecture
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Scaling studies typically represent training data by a single count of samples. For hierarchically and spatially structured data, however, the same number of samples can be drawn from few or many sources and distributed differently across the underlying domain. We therefore study data scaling as an allocation problem, separating unique sample count, source diversity, and spatial coverage. We study this decomposition in microscopic whole-brain histology, where a source is an individual brain, and a sample is an image patch at a specific spatial location. Across 93 controlled pretraining runs of a contrastive model that uses spatial proximity for supervision, we vary data allocation, compute, and model capacity over 11.6 million spatially anchored image patches from 21 human brains. Performance improves with more unique samples, broader spatial coverage, additional compute, and larger model capacity. At fixed sample count, distributing samples across one to 18 subjects produces no detectable improvement, even though representations generalize substantially better to subjects encountered during pretraining. Inter-subject variation therefore strongly affects generalization, but additional subjects provide no benefit when a fixed sample budget is distributed across more sources. These results establish sample count, source diversity, and spatial coverage as distinct axes of data scaling in spatially structured representation learning.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Sep 2026.
Builds on
20 of 36 references.
References · 20
- 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
- 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,305
- 2023DINOv2: Learning Robust Visual Features without Supervisioncited by 7,974
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
- 2022Training Compute-Optimal Large Language Modelscited by 3,019
- 2023Vision Transformers Need Registerscited by 871
- 2021Deduplicating Training Data Makes Language Models Bettercited by 714
- 2022Beyond neural scaling laws: beating power law scaling via data pruningcited by 528
- 2020Scaling Laws for Autoregressive Generative Modelingcited by 522
- 2023Scaling Data-Constrained Language Modelscited by 403
- 2024Virchow2: Scaling Self-Supervised Mixed Magnification Models in Pathologycited by 161
- 2023D4: Improving LLM Pretraining via Document De-Duplication and Diversificationcited by 150
8 more
- 2018Tile2Vec: Unsupervised representation learning for spatially distributed datacited by 110
- 2016Full-Resolution Residual Networks for Semantic Segmentation in Street Scenescited by 71
- 2024A Clinical Benchmark of Public Self-Supervised Pathology Foundation Modelscited by 66
- 2026ViT-5: Vision Transformers for The Mid-2020scited by 9
- 2025Deploying Geospatial Foundation Models in the Real World: Lessons from WorldCerealcited by 6
- 2024Self-Supervised Representation Learning for Nerve Fiber Distribution Patterns in 3D-PLIcited by 4
- 2025Mapping on a Budget: Optimizing Spatial Data Collection for MLcited by 2
- 2025CytoNet: A Foundation Model for the Human Cerebral Cortex at Cellular Resolutioncited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.