How do those speedups compare to simply collecting more unlabeled detector data instead?

I need to clarify your question: the preprints provided don't directly compare neural speedups to collecting more unlabeled detector data, so I can't give you a full answer from this archive.

However, one result is relevant: [AG-2026.02-1215] studies neural scaling laws for jet classification and shows that data repetition—reusing simulated data multiple times—yields a quantifiable effective dataset size gain. This suggests that in simulation-constrained physics, intelligently reusing existing data can partially substitute for collecting fresh data. But this addresses only repetition, not the broader trade-off between faster simulation via neural networks versus acquiring genuinely new detector measurements.

The papers focus on speed gains from neural emulation (often 100–1000× faster than Geant4 [AG-2024.05-1569]) rather than comparing those gains to alternative data collection strategies. To answer your question properly, you'd need studies that model the cost–benefit of retraining detectors, acquiring new hardware, or expanding simulation budgets against the marginal physics gains from each approach.