mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Data Difficulty and the Generalization--Extrapolation Tradeoff in LLM Fine-Tuning

arXiv 2605.12906 ↗First posted 13 May 2026cs.LG cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Data selection during supervised fine-tuning (SFT) can critically change the behavior of large language models (LLMs). Although existing work has studied the effect of selecting data based on heuristics such as perplexity, difficulty, or length, the reported findings are often inconsistent or context-dependent. In this work, we systematically study the role of data difficulty in fine-tuning from both empirical and theoretical perspectives, and find that there is no universally optimal difficulty level; rather, its effectiveness depends on the dataset size. We show that for a fixed data budget, there exists an optimal data difficulty for SFT, and that this optimal difficulty shifts toward harder data as the data budget increases. To explain this phenomenon, we conduct controlled synthetic experiments that reveal a simple underlying mechanism: the interplay between the (in-distribution) generalization gap and the extrapolation gap. We further support this mechanism through a theoretical analysis using PAC-Bayesian generalization bounds. Overall, our results clarify how data size and difficulty jointly affect the trade-off between generalization and extrapolation in SFT, providing guidance for difficulty-based data selection under certain model and data conditions.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 May 2026.

Builds on

26 of 30 references.

References · 26

  1. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
  2. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
  3. 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,203
  4. 2024LlamaFactory: Unified Efficient Fine-Tuning of 100+ Language Modelscited by 1,442
  5. 2022Solving Quantitative Reasoning Problems with Language Modelscited by 1,359
  6. 2025s1: Simple test-time scalingcited by 1,311
  7. 2024Qwen2.5-Math Technical Report: Toward Mathematical Expert Model via Self-Improvementcited by 1,057
  8. 2024LESS: Selecting Influential Data for Targeted Instruction Tuningcited by 514
  9. 2025LIMO: Less is More for Reasoningcited by 488
  10. 2021User-friendly introduction to PAC-Bayes boundscited by 234
  11. 2019Task2Vec: Task Embedding for Meta-Learningcited by 197
  12. 2025AIMO-2 Winning Solution: Building State-of-the-Art Mathematical Reasoning Models with OpenMathReasoning datasetcited by 165
14 more
  1. 2025On the Generalization of SFT: A Reinforcement Learning Perspective with Reward Rectificationcited by 121
  2. 2024Physics of Language Models: Part 2.1, Grade-School Math and the Hidden Reasoning Processcited by 107
  3. 2025The Best Instruction-Tuning Data are Those That Fitcited by 48
  4. 2025Long-Short Chain-of-Thought Mixture Supervised Fine-Tuning Eliciting Efficient Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 37
  5. 2019The Information Complexity of Learning Tasks, their Structure and their Distancecited by 35
  6. 2020Improving Generalization by Controlling Label-Noise Information in Neural Network Weightscited by 35
  7. 2021KL Guided Domain Adaptationcited by 35
  8. 2022BERTIN: Efficient Pre-Training of a Spanish Language Model using Perplexity Samplingcited by 30
  9. 2025SFT Doesn't Always Hurt General Capabilities: Revisiting Domain-Specific Fine-Tuning in LLMscited by 23
  10. 2024Rethinking Data Selection at Scale: Random Selection is Almost All You Needcited by 22
  11. 2025Beyond Log Likelihood: Probability-Based Objectives for Supervised Fine-Tuning across the Model Capability Continuumcited by 16
  12. 2024I Learn Better If You Speak My Language: Understanding the Superior Performance of Fine-Tuning Large Language Models with LLM-Generated Responsescited by 13
  13. 2025Difficulty-Based Preference Data Selection by DPO Implicit Reward Gapcited by 7
  14. 2025AdaptiveLLM: A Framework for Selecting Optimal Cost-Efficient LLM for Code-Generation Based on CoT Lengthcited by 3

Built on by

Not cited yet.