REVIEW 5 cited by
Large-Scale Data Selection for Instruction Tuning
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Selecting high-quality training data from a larger pool is a crucial step when instruction-tuning language models, as carefully curated datasets often produce models that outperform those trained on much larger, noisier datasets. Automated data selection approaches for instruction-tuning are typically tested by selecting small datasets (roughly 10k samples) from small pools (100-200k samples). However, popular deployed instruction-tuned models often train on hundreds of thousands to millions of samples, subsampled from even larger data pools. We present a systematic study of how well data selection methods scale to these settings, selecting up to 2.5M samples from pools of up to 5.8M samples and evaluating across 7 diverse tasks. We show that many recently proposed methods fall short of random selection in this setting (while using more compute), and even decline in performance when given access to larger pools of data to select over. However, we find that a variant of representation-based data selection (RDS+), which uses weighted mean pooling of pretrained LM hidden states, consistently outperforms more complex methods across all settings tested -- all whilst being more compute-efficient. Our findings highlight that the scaling properties of proposed automated selection methods should be more closely examined. We release our code, data, and models at https://github.com/hamishivi/automated-instruction-selection.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
A Critical Look at Targeted Instruction Selection: Disentangling What Matters (and What Doesn't)
Only gradient-based (LESS) representations make subset-to-query distance a reliable predictor of instruction-tuning performance; greedy round-robin helps most at small budgets, and random selection is surprisingly com...
-
Representation-Based Exploration for Language Models: From Test-Time to Post-Training
Representation-based elliptical bonuses improve inference-time and post-training pass@k for LLM reasoning, but the headline AIME result is tainted by validation/test overlap.
-
Act Only When It Pays: Efficient Reinforcement Learning for LLM Reasoning via Selective Rollouts
An online pre-rollout filter that predicts and skips zero-variance prompts from reward dynamics reduces GRPO rollout time by up to 2.4x with comparable math reasoning accuracy.
-
From Data-Centric to Sample-Centric: Enhancing LLM Reasoning via Progressive Optimization
A sample-centric RLVR method (LPPO), combining hint prefixes and learning-progress weighting, improves math reasoning pass@1 by 2 to 4 points over a GRPO baseline.
-
Efficient Data Selection at Scale via Influence Distillation
Influence Distillation selects LLM fine-tuning data by approximating each sample's gradient influence on a target task via landmarks and JVP embeddings, matching or beating RDS+ accuracy at roughly one third the selec...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.