SPICE: Submodular Penalized Information-Conflict Selection for Efficient Large Language Model Training
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Information-based data selection for instruction tuning is compelling: maximizing the log-determinant of the Fisher information yields a monotone submodular objective, enabling greedy algorithms to achieve a (1-1/e) approximation under a cardinality budget. In practice, however, we identify alleviating gradient conflicts, misalignment between per-sample gradients, is a key factor that slows down the decay of marginal log-determinant information gains, thereby preventing significant loss of information. We formalize this via an varepsilon-decomposition that quantifies the deviation from ideal submodularity as a function of conflict statistics, yielding data-dependent approximation factors that tighten as conflicts diminish. Guided by this analysis, we propose SPICE, a conflict-aware selector that maximizes information while penalizing misalignment, and that supports early stopping and proxy models for efficiency. Empirically, SPICE selects subsets with higher log-determinant information than original criteria, and these informational gains translate into performance improvements: across 8 benchmarks with LLaMA2-7B and Qwen2-7B, SPICE uses only 10% of the data, yet matches or exceeds 6 methods including full-data tuning. This achieves performance improvements with substantially lower training cost.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 35 of its 47 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Jan 2026.
Builds on
35 of 47 references.
References · 35
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
- 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,710
- 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,509
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,919
- 2022Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Themcited by 1,767
- 2024LlamaFactory: Unified Efficient Fine-Tuning of 100+ Language Modelscited by 1,442
- 2023A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Modelscited by 1,227
- 2020Gradient Surgery for Multi-Task Learningcited by 1,210
- 2023Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Modelscited by 1,143
- 2023LIMA: Less Is More for Alignmentcited by 1,080
23 more
- 2015Optimizing Neural Networks with Kronecker-factored Approximate Curvaturecited by 776
- 2024LESS: Selecting Influential Data for Targeted Instruction Tuningcited by 514
- 2021Conflict-Averse Gradient Descent for Multi-task Learningcited by 441
- 2023What Makes Good Data for Alignment? A Comprehensive Study of Automatic Data Selection in Instruction Tuningcited by 354
- 2019Selection via Proxy: Efficient Data Selection for Deep Learningcited by 337
- 2023From Quantity to Quality: Boosting LLM Performance with Self-Guided Data Selection for Instruction Tuningcited by 301
- 2024A Survey on Data Selection for Language Modelscited by 230
- 2024Superfiltering: Weak-to-Strong Data Filtering for Fast Instruction-Tuningcited by 134
- 2023#InsTag: Instruction Tagging for Analyzing Supervised Fine-tuning of Large Language Modelscited by 108
- 2024MATES: Model-Aware Data Selection for Efficient Pretraining with Data Influence Modelscited by 96
- 2023Instruction Mining: Instruction Data Selection for Tuning Large Language Modelscited by 57
- 2023Recon: Reducing Conflicting Gradients from the Root for Multi-Task Learningcited by 50
- 2024SmallToLarge (S2L): Scalable Data Selection for Fine-tuning Large Language Models by Summarizing Training Trajectories of Small Modelscited by 43
- 2024SelectIT: Selective Instruction Tuning for LLMs via Uncertainty-Aware Self-Reflectioncited by 34
- 2025Large-Scale Data Selection for Instruction Tuningcited by 34
- 2024TSDS: Data Selection for Task-Specific Model Finetuningcited by 28
- 2025Measuring Data Diversity for Instruction Tuning: A Systematic Analysis and A Reliable Metriccited by 24
- 2024Rethinking Data Selection at Scale: Random Selection is Almost All You Needcited by 22
- 2024AdaFisher: Adaptive Second Order Optimization via Fisher Informationcited by 14
- 2025FisherSFT: Data-Efficient Supervised Fine-Tuning of Language Models Using Information Gaincited by 14
- 2025LEAD: Iterative Data Selection for Efficient LLM Instruction Tuningcited by 13
- 2025MIG: Automatic Data Selection for Instruction Tuning by Maximizing Information Gain in Semantic Spacecited by 12
- 2023DPP-based Client Selection for Federated Learning with Non-IID Datacited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.
5 papers.
- 2026One Algorithm, Two Goals: Dual Scoring for Parameter and Data Selection in LLM Fine-Tuningcited by 0
- 2026SafeBuild-Bench: A Temporal-Robust Construction Safety Benchmark with Graph-Enhanced Data Miningcited by 0
- 2026A helps B while B hurts A: directed transfer in instruction-tuning mixturecited by 0
- 2026Every Batch Is Its Own Validation Set: Leave-One-Out Gradient Matching for Online Data Selection in LLM Fine-Tuningcited by 0
- 2026Training-Aware Target Coverage for Synthetic Data Selectioncited by 0
- 2026Training-Aware Target Coverage for Synthetic Data Selection30 Sep 2026
- 2026Every Batch Is Its Own Validation Set: Leave-One-Out Gradient Matching for Online Data Selection in LLM Fine-Tuning30 Sep 2026
- 2026A helps B while B hurts A: directed transfer in instruction-tuning mixture30 Sep 2026
- 2026SafeBuild-Bench: A Temporal-Robust Construction Safety Benchmark with Graph-Enhanced Data Mining29 Jul 2026
- 2026One Algorithm, Two Goals: Dual Scoring for Parameter and Data Selection in LLM Fine-Tuning7 May 2026