mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

SCAR: Data Selection via Style Consistency-Aware Response Ranking for Efficient Instruction-Tuning of Large Language Models

arXiv 2406.10882 ↗First posted 16 Jun 2024cs.CLcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Recent studies emphasize that manually ensuring a consistent response style and maintaining high data quality in training sets can significantly improve the performance of fine-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) while reducing the number of training examples needed. However, the precise definition of style and the relationship between style, data quality, and LLM performance remains unclear. This research identifies two key stylistic elements in responses: linguistic form and instructional surprisal. We find that, among training data of comparable quality, higher consistency in these response elements leads to better LLM performance. Inspired by this, we introduce Style Consistency-Aware Response Ranking (SCAR), which automatically prioritizes instruction-response pairs in the training set based on their response stylistic consistency. By selecting the most style-consistent examples, using only 0.7% of the full dataset in the best case, the fine-tuned LLMs can match or even surpass the performance of models trained on the entire dataset in coding and open-ended question-answering benchmarks. Code and data are available at https://github.com/zhuang-li/SCAR .

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 52 of its 87 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Jun 2024.

Builds on

52 of 87 references.

References · 52

  1. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
  2. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  3. 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,084
  4. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  5. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
  6. 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,049
  7. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
  8. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
  9. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
  10. 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,710
  11. 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,018
  12. 2021Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learnerscited by 3,747
38 more
  1. 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,634
  2. 2022Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Modelscited by 2,997
  3. 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,919
  4. 2022Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructionscited by 2,674
  5. 2021Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalizationcited by 1,462
  6. 2017Learning to Compare: Relation Network for Few-Shot Learningcited by 1,139
  7. 2023LIMA: Less Is More for Alignmentcited by 1,080
  8. 2024Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluatorscited by 865
  9. 2022Super-NaturalInstructions: Generalization via Declarative Instructions on 1600+ NLP Taskscited by 858
  10. 2023StarCoder: may the source be with you!cited by 790
  11. 2023AlpacaFarm: A Simulation Framework for Methods that Learn from Human Feedbackcited by 738
  12. 2023WizardCoder: Empowering Code Large Language Models with Evol-Instructcited by 728
  13. 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
  14. 2018Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution: Evaluation and Debiasing Methodscited by 657
  15. 2024OLMo: Accelerating the Science of Language Modelscited by 599
  16. 2019The Woman Worked as a Babysitter: On Biases in Language Generationcited by 540
  17. 2021BOLD: Dataset and Metrics for Measuring Biases in Open-Ended Language Generationcited by 410
  18. 2023What Makes Good Data for Alignment? A Comprehensive Study of Automatic Data Selection in Instruction Tuningcited by 354
  19. 2023From Quantity to Quality: Boosting LLM Performance with Self-Guided Data Selection for Instruction Tuningcited by 301
  20. 2024A Survey on Data Selection for Language Modelscited by 230
  21. 2020Learning from the Worst: Dynamically Generated Datasets to Improve Online Hate Detectioncited by 217
  22. 2023DetectLLM: Leveraging Log Rank Information for Zero-Shot Detection of Machine-Generated Textcited by 207
  23. 2024Superfiltering: Weak-to-Strong Data Filtering for Fast Instruction-Tuningcited by 134
  24. 2023LaMini-LM: A Diverse Herd of Distilled Models from Large-Scale Instructionscited by 124
  25. 2022Why Does Surprisal From Larger Transformer-Based Language Models Provide a Poorer Fit to Human Reading Times?cited by 111
  26. 2024Self-Distillation Bridges Distribution Gap in Language Model Fine-Tuningcited by 90
  27. 2019Diverse mini-batch Active Learningcited by 88
  28. 2024Long Is More for Alignment: A Simple but Tough-to-Beat Baseline for Instruction Fine-Tuningcited by 85
  29. 2023Data Diversity Matters for Robust Instruction Tuningcited by 76
  30. 2021Machine Translationese: Effects of Algorithmic Bias on Linguistic Complexity in Machine Translationcited by 70
  31. 2023SeqXGPT: Sentence-Level AI-Generated Text Detectioncited by 55
  32. 2023ICE-Score: Instructing Large Language Models to Evaluate Codecited by 50
  33. 2023LLMDet: A Third Party Large Language Models Generated Text Detection Toolcited by 44
  34. 2024Detecting AI-Generated Sentences in Human-AI Collaborative Hybrid Texts: Challenges, Strategies, and Insightscited by 21
  35. 2023Towards Automatic Boundary Detection for Human-AI Collaborative Hybrid Essay in Educationcited by 17
  36. 2023HANSEN: Human and AI Spoken Text Benchmark for Authorship Analysiscited by 10
  37. 2023Can Programming Languages Boost Each Other via Instruction Tuning?cited by 7
  38. 2023Temperature-scaling surprisal estimates improve fit to human reading times -- but does it do so for the "right reasons"?cited by 7

50 most cited of 52 All 52 (JSON)

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 4.

6 papers.