mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Diagnosing Capability Gaps in Fine-Tuning Data

arXiv 2604.27547 ↗First posted 30 Apr 2026cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) for domain-specific tasks requires training datasets that comprehensively cover the target capabilities a practitioner needs. Yet identifying which capabilities a dataset fails to support, and doing so before an expensive fine-tuning run, remains a largely unsolved problem. We introduce GoalCover, a framework that helps practitioners systematically detect capability gaps in fine-tuning datasets through interactive goal decomposition and automated coverage assessment. GoalCover guides a practitioner through structured decomposition of a high-level goal into atomic, independently evaluable subgoals; assigns each training sample an LLM-based alignment score against every subgoal; and surfaces missing capabilities through automated analysis of low-scoring sample explanations. We validate the framework along two complementary axes. First, through controlled corruption experiments across three domains (medical QA, legal summarization, code generation), we show that GoalCover reliably distinguishes targeted from non-targeted capability impacts: target subgoals degrade by 25.6% on average versus 2.1% for non-target subgoals (Cohen's d=1.24). Second, we demonstrate downstream utility on a financial-summarization Reinforcement Fine-Tuning (RFT) task with Qwen-3-14B: training on GoalCover-filtered data improves the LLM-judge reward from 3.77 to 4.12 (out of 5) over the unfiltered baseline, and combining filtered data with goal-conditioned synthetic samples yields the strongest result (4.20). The two results together show that GoalCover works as a practical pre-fine-tuning diagnostic: it detects capability gaps and produces concrete signal for closing them.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Apr 2026.

Builds on

21 of 26 references.

References · 21

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  2. 2021Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learnerscited by 3,780
  3. 2022Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructionscited by 2,724
  4. 2020Learning to summarize from human feedbackcited by 2,588
  5. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,276
  6. 2020WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shiftscited by 1,375
  7. 2019PubMedQA: A Dataset for Biomedical Research Question Answeringcited by 1,288
  8. 2023LIMA: Less Is More for Alignmentcited by 1,100
  9. 2024Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluatorscited by 897
  10. 2022Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Wordscited by 751
  11. 2024Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Modelscited by 446
  12. 2020Dataset Cartography: Mapping and Diagnosing Datasets with Training Dynamicscited by 425
9 more
  1. 2019Confident Learning: Estimating Uncertainty in Dataset Labelscited by 413
  2. 2023GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desirecited by 361
  3. 2023From Quantity to Quality: Boosting LLM Performance with Self-Guided Data Selection for Instruction Tuningcited by 307
  4. 2020Identifying Mislabeled Data using the Area Under the Margin Rankingcited by 261
  5. 2023Data-centric Artificial Intelligence: A Surveycited by 203
  6. 2023Generative Judge for Evaluating Alignmentcited by 169
  7. 2019BillSum: A Corpus for Automatic Summarization of US Legislationcited by 117
  8. 2026Grading Scale Impact on LLM-as-a-Judge: Human-LLM Alignment Is Highest on 0-5 Grading Scalecited by 20
  9. 2026SibylSense: Adaptive Rubric Learning via Memory Tuning and Adversarial Probingcited by 6

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Multitask Mayhem: Unveiling and Mitigating Safety Gaps in LLMs Fine-tuning
  2. 2025Uncovering Competency Gaps in Large Language Models and Their Benchmarks
  3. 2025Towards Alignment-Centric Paradigm: A Survey of Instruction Tuning in Large Language Models
  4. 2025Picky LLMs and Unreliable RMs: An Empirical Study on Safety Alignment after Instruction Tuning
  5. 2025Large language models require a new form of oversight: capability-based monitoring
  6. 2025Fine-Tuning Lowers Safety and Disrupts Evaluation Consistency
  7. 2026Few Tokens, Big Leverage: Preserving Safety Alignment by Constraining Safety Tokens during Fine-tuning
  8. 2025Efficiency vs. Alignment: Investigating Safety and Fairness Risks in Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning of LLMs