mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

ROSE: A Reward-Oriented Data Selection Framework for LLM Task-Specific Instruction Tuning

arXiv 2412.00631 ↗First posted 1 Dec 2024cs.LG cs.AI cs.CLcited by 10

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Instruction tuning has underscored the significant potential of large language models (LLMs) in producing more human controllable and effective outputs in various domains. In this work, we focus on the data selection problem for task-specific instruction tuning of LLMs. Prevailing methods primarily rely on the crafted similarity metrics to select training data that aligns with the test data distribution. The goal is to minimize instruction tuning loss on the test data, ultimately improving performance on the target task. However, it has been widely observed that instruction tuning loss (i.e., cross-entropy loss for next token prediction) in LLMs often fails to exhibit a monotonic relationship with actual task performance. This misalignment undermines the effectiveness of current data selection methods for task-specific instruction tuning. To address this issue, we introduce ROSE, a novel Reward-Oriented inStruction data sElection method which leverages pairwise preference loss as a reward signal to optimize data selection for task-specific instruction tuning. Specifically, ROSE adapts an influence formulation to approximate the influence of training data points relative to a few-shot preference validation set to select the most task-related training data points. Experimental results show that by selecting just 5% of the training data using ROSE, our approach can achieve competitive results compared to fine-tuning with the full training dataset, and it surpasses other state-of-the-art data selection methods for task-specific instruction tuning. Our qualitative analysis further confirms the robust generalizability of our method across multiple benchmark datasets and diverse model architectures.

Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 35 of its 62 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Dec 2024.

Builds on

35 of 62 references.

References · 35

  1. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
  2. 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 15,215
  3. 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,380
  4. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
  5. 2018The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Features as a Perceptual Metriccited by 11,177
  6. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  7. 2019Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferencescited by 2,150
  8. 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,741
  9. 2023LIMA: Less Is More for Alignmentcited by 1,100
  10. 2024SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free Rewardcited by 963
  11. 2023The Flan Collection: Designing Data and Methods for Effective Instruction Tuningcited by 739
  12. 2023OpenAssistant Conversations -- Democratizing Large Language Model Alignmentcited by 721
23 more
  1. 2024LESS: Selecting Influential Data for Targeted Instruction Tuningcited by 532
  2. 2020What Neural Networks Memorize and Why: Discovering the Long Tail via Influence Estimationcited by 497
  3. 2023How Far Can Camels Go? Exploring the State of Instruction Tuning on Open Resourcescited by 408
  4. 2023What Makes Good Data for Alignment? A Comprehensive Study of Automatic Data Selection in Instruction Tuningcited by 364
  5. 2023Data Selection for Language Models via Importance Resamplingcited by 329
  6. 2023From Quantity to Quality: Boosting LLM Performance with Self-Guided Data Selection for Instruction Tuningcited by 307
  7. 2023TRAK: Attributing Model Behavior at Scalecited by 283
  8. 2023Pretraining Language Models with Human Preferencescited by 247
  9. 2023Fine-tuning Language Models for Factualitycited by 221
  10. 2021Post-hoc Interpretability for Neural NLP: A Surveycited by 156
  11. 2023Some things are more CRINGE than others: Iterative Preference Optimization with the Pairwise Cringe Losscited by 108
  12. 2023MoDS: Model-oriented Data Selection for Instruction Tuningcited by 107
  13. 2021Scale Efficiently: Insights from Pre-training and Fine-tuning Transformerscited by 106
  14. 2024LiPO: Listwise Preference Optimization through Learning-to-Rankcited by 96
  15. 2024A Survey on Data Selection for LLM Instruction Tuningcited by 77
  16. 2023MM-LIMA: Less Is More for Alignment in Multi-Modal Datasetscited by 61
  17. 2021Shapley values for feature selection: The good, the bad, and the axiomscited by 54
  18. 2024Smaller Language Models are capable of selecting Instruction-Tuning Training Data for Larger Language Modelscited by 32
  19. 2024Automated Data Curation for Robust Language Model Fine-Tuningcited by 27
  20. 2024DELIFT: Data Efficient Language model Instruction Fine Tuningcited by 14
  21. 2024Knowledge-Infused Legal Wisdom: Navigating LLM Consultation through the Lens of Diagnostics and Positive-Unlabeled Reinforcement Learningcited by 12
  22. 2024The Fellowship of the LLMs: Multi-Model Workflows for Synthetic Preference Optimization Dataset Generationcited by 11
  23. 2023Community-Based Hierarchical Positive-Unlabeled (PU) Model Fusion for Chronic Disease Predictioncited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 5; 2026: 5.

10 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Aligning Instruction Tuning with Pre-training
  2. 2023Tuna: Instruction Tuning using Feedback from Large Language Models
  3. 2024Unleashing the Power of Data Tsunami: A Comprehensive Survey on Data Assessment and Selection for Instruction Tuning of Language Models
  4. 2025BLEUBERI: BLEU is a surprisingly effective reward for instruction following
  5. 2024Selective Reflection-Tuning: Student-Selected Data Recycling for LLM Instruction-Tuning
  6. 2026IF-RewardBench: Benchmarking Judge Models for Instruction-Following Evaluation
  7. 2025LEAD: Iterative Data Selection for Efficient LLM Instruction Tuning
  8. 2023Self-Evolved Diverse Data Sampling for Efficient Instruction Tuning