On Representation Redundancy in Large-Scale Instruction Tuning Data Selection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Data quality is a crucial factor in large language models training. While prior work has shown that models trained on smaller, high-quality datasets can outperform those trained on much larger but noisy or low-quality corpora, systematic methods for industrial-scale data selection in instruction tuning remain underexplored. In this work, we study instruction-tuning data selection through the lens of semantic representation similarity and identify a key limitation of state-of-the-art LLM encoders: they produce highly redundant semantic embeddings. To mitigate this redundancy, we propose Compressed Representation Data Selection (CRDS), a novel framework with two variants. CRDS-R applies Rademacher random projection followed by concatenation of transformer hidden-layer representations, while CRDS-W employs whitening-based dimensionality reduction to improve representational quality. Experimental results demonstrate that both variants substantially enhance data quality and consistently outperform state-of-the-art representation-based selection methods. Notably, CRDS-W achieves strong performance using only 3.5% of the data, surpassing the full-data baseline by an average of 0.71% across four datasets. Our code is available at https://github.com/tdano1/CRDS.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 48 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Feb 2026.
Builds on
48 of 54 references.
References · 48
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
- 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,509
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 2,950
- 2021SimCSE: Simple Contrastive Learning of Sentence Embeddingscited by 2,168
- 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
- 2024Tulu 3: Pushing Frontiers in Open Language Model Post-Trainingcited by 988
36 more
- 2019How Contextual are Contextualized Word Representations? Comparing the Geometry of BERT, ELMo, and GPT-2 Embeddingscited by 770
- 2022Beyond neural scaling laws: beating power law scaling via data pruningcited by 519
- 2024LESS: Selecting Influential Data for Targeted Instruction Tuningcited by 514
- 2020Dataset Condensation with Gradient Matchingcited by 510
- 2025LIMO: Less is More for Reasoningcited by 488
- 2022Text and Code Embeddings by Contrastive Pre-Trainingcited by 358
- 2023What Makes Good Data for Alignment? A Comprehensive Study of Automatic Data Selection in Instruction Tuningcited by 354
- 2023From Quantity to Quality: Boosting LLM Performance with Self-Guided Data Selection for Instruction Tuningcited by 301
- 2021Whitening Sentence Representations for Better Semantics and Faster Retrievalcited by 198
- 2022DiffCSE: Difference-based Contrastive Learning for Sentence Embeddingscited by 131
- 2023#InsTag: Instruction Tagging for Analyzing Supervised Fine-tuning of Large Language Modelscited by 108
- 2024Long Is More for Alignment: A Simple but Tough-to-Beat Baseline for Instruction Fine-Tuningcited by 85
- 2023Data Diversity Matters for Robust Instruction Tuningcited by 76
- 2024Clustering and Ranking: Diversity-preserved Instruction Selection through Expert-aligned Quality Estimationcited by 53
- 2023One-Shot Learning as Instruction Data Prospector for Large Language Modelscited by 43
- 2024SmallToLarge (S2L): Scalable Data Selection for Fine-tuning Large Language Models by Summarizing Training Trajectories of Small Modelscited by 43
- 2024Provably Robust Multi-bit Watermarking for AI-generated Textcited by 38
- 2024SelectIT: Selective Instruction Tuning for LLMs via Uncertainty-Aware Self-Reflectioncited by 34
- 2025Large-Scale Data Selection for Instruction Tuningcited by 34
- 2025Every Activation Boosted: Scaling General Reasoner to 1 Trillion Open Language Foundationcited by 32
- 2024TAGCOS: Task-agnostic Gradient Clustered Coreset Selection for Instruction Tuning Datacited by 28
- 2024TSDS: Data Selection for Task-Specific Model Finetuningcited by 28
- 2024Rethinking Data Selection at Scale: Random Selection is Almost All You Needcited by 22
- 2025D3: Diversity, Difficulty, and Dependability-Aware Data Selection for Sample-Efficient LLM Instruction Tuningcited by 21
- 2024SHED: Shapley-Based Automated Dataset Refinement for Instruction Fine-Tuningcited by 19
- 2024Token-wise Influential Training Data Retrieval for Large Language Modelscited by 19
- 2025Efficient Data Selection at Scale via Influence Distillationcited by 14
- 2024Exploring the Mystery of Influential Data for Mathematical Reasoningcited by 13
- 2025MIG: Automatic Data Selection for Instruction Tuning by Maximizing Information Gain in Semantic Spacecited by 12
- 2020Selecting Informative Contexts Improves Language Model Finetuningcited by 11
- 2024Compute-Constrained Data Selectioncited by 10
- 2025Importance-Aware Data Selection for Efficient LLM Instruction Tuningcited by 7
- 2025TRIM: Token-wise Attention-Derived Saliency for Data-Efficient Instruction Tuningcited by 3
- 2025Mining Useful General Data for Low-Resource Domain Adaptationcited by 3
- 2025RICo: Refined In-Context Contribution for Automatic Instruction-Tuning Data Selectioncited by 2
- 2025GradientSpace: Unsupervised Data Clustering for Improved Instruction Tuningcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
- 2026How Vulnerable Are Edge LLMs?cited by 0
- 2026How Vulnerable Are Edge LLMs?25 Mar 2026