Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

DataComp-VLM: Improved Open Datasets for Vision-Language Models

Matteo Farina, Vishaal Udandarao, Thao Nguyen, Selim Kuzucu, Maximilian Böther, Andreas Hochlehnert, Adhiraj Ghosh, Marianna Nezhurina, Karsten Roth, Joschka Struber, Yuhui Zhang, Sebastian Dziadzio, Elaine Sui, Soumya Jahagirdar, Dhruba Ghosh, Hasan Hammoud, Thomas De Min, Simone Caldarella, Jehanzeb Mirza, Sedrick Keh, Mehdi Cherti, Hilde Kuehne, Bernt Schiele, Serena Yeung-Levy, Muhammad Ferjad Naeem, Federico Tombari, Ana Klimovic, Elisa Ricci, Matthias Bethge, Sewoong Oh, Ameya Prabhu, Alessio Tonioni, Jenia Jitsev, Massimiliano Mancini, Ludwig Schmidt, Nikhil Parthasarathy · Jun 26, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Building performant Vision-Language Models (VLMs) requires carefully curating large-scale training datasets, yet the community lacks systematic benchmarks for evaluating such curation strategies. We introduce DataComp for VLMs (DCVLM), a benchmark for controlled data-centric experiments to improve VLM training. As part of DCVLM, we collect 160 datasets spanning four data types -- image-caption pairs, multimodal interleaved documents, text-only, and instruction-tuning data -- into a corpus of 6T multimodal tokens. DCVLM allows participants to test curation strategies (filtering, mixing, formatting, sampling) across 1B-8B models and 6.25B-200B token budgets. Models are then evaluated on a carefully selected suite of up to 52 downstream benchmarks across 9 domains. We conduct extensive experiments on DCVLM and find that data mixing, not filtering, is key to a high-quality training dataset: instruction-heavy mixtures scale better than caption-heavy ones, with gains widening at larger scales. The resulting dataset, DCVLM-Baseline, enables training an 8B VLM to 63.6% accuracy on our 33-task core suite with 200B training tokens. Compared to FineVision, the state-of-the-art open VLM training dataset, this represents an improvement of +5.4pp. DCVLM and all accompanying artifacts will be made publicly available at https://www.datacomp.ai/dcvlm/.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Building performant Vision-Language Models (VLMs) requires carefully curating large-scale training datasets, yet the community lacks systematic benchmarks for evaluating such curation strategies."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Building performant Vision-Language Models (VLMs) requires carefully curating large-scale training datasets, yet the community lacks systematic benchmarks for evaluating such curation strategies."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Building performant Vision-Language Models (VLMs) requires carefully curating large-scale training datasets, yet the community lacks systematic benchmarks for evaluating such curation strategies."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Building performant Vision-Language Models (VLMs) requires carefully curating large-scale training datasets, yet the community lacks systematic benchmarks for evaluating such curation strategies."

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"The resulting dataset, DCVLM-Baseline, enables training an 8B VLM to 63.6% accuracy on our 33-task core suite with 200B training tokens."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

accuracy

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Building performant Vision-Language Models (VLMs) requires carefully curating large-scale training datasets, yet the community lacks systematic benchmarks for evaluating such curation strategies.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Building performant Vision-Language Models (VLMs) requires carefully curating large-scale training datasets, yet the community lacks systematic benchmarks for evaluating such curation strategies.
  • We introduce DataComp for VLMs (DCVLM), a benchmark for controlled data-centric experiments to improve VLM training.
  • As part of DCVLM, we collect 160 datasets spanning four data types -- image-caption pairs, multimodal interleaved documents, text-only, and instruction-tuning data -- into a corpus of 6T multimodal tokens.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Accuracy

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Building performant Vision-Language Models (VLMs) requires carefully curating large-scale training datasets, yet the community lacks systematic benchmarks for evaluating such curation strategies.
  • We introduce DataComp for VLMs (DCVLM), a benchmark for controlled data-centric experiments to improve VLM training.
  • Models are then evaluated on a carefully selected suite of up to 52 downstream benchmarks across 9 domains.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Building performant Vision-Language Models (VLMs) requires carefully curating large-scale training datasets, yet the community lacks systematic benchmarks for evaluating such curation strategies.
  • We introduce DataComp for VLMs (DCVLM), a benchmark for controlled data-centric experiments to improve VLM training.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.