From Instance Selection to Fixed-Pool Data Recipe Search for Supervised Fine-Tuning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) data selection is commonly formulated as instance ranking: score each example and retain a top-k subset. However, effective SFT training subsets are often produced through ordered curation recipes, where filtering, mixing, and deduplication operators jointly shape the final data distribution. We formulate this problem as fixed-pool data recipe search: given a raw instruction pool and a library of grounded operators, the goal is to discover an executable recipe that constructs a high-quality selected subset under a limited budget of full SFT evaluations, without generating, rewriting, or augmenting training samples. We introduce AutoSelection, a two-layer solver that decouples fixed-pool materialization based on cached task-, data-, and model-side signals from expensive full evaluation, using warmup probes, realized subset states, local recipe edits, Gaussian-process-assisted ranking, and stagnation-triggered reseeding. Experiments on a 90K instruction pool show that AutoSelection achieves the strongest in-distribution reasoning average across three base models, outperforming full-data training, random recipe search, random top-k, and single-operator selectors. Additional Out-of-distribution graph-reasoning results, search-stability analyses, structural ablations, and 1.5B-to-7B transfer checks further show that recipe structure matters beyond individual selection operators. Code is available at https://github.com/w253/AutoSelection.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 32 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 May 2026.
Builds on
32 of 44 references.
References · 32
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
- 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,748
- 2022Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructionscited by 2,674
- 2022Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language modelscited by 1,970
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,359
- 2021Deduplicating Training Data Makes Language Models Bettercited by 705
- 2016Hyperband: A Novel Bandit-Based Approach to Hyperparameter Optimizationcited by 688
- 2024LESS: Selecting Influential Data for Targeted Instruction Tuningcited by 514
- 2018BOHB: Robust and Efficient Hyperparameter Optimization at Scalecited by 466
- 2023DoReMi: Optimizing Data Mixtures Speeds Up Language Model Pretrainingcited by 385
- 2023What Makes Good Data for Alignment? A Comprehensive Study of Automatic Data Selection in Instruction Tuningcited by 354
20 more
- 2023From Quantity to Quality: Boosting LLM Performance with Self-Guided Data Selection for Instruction Tuningcited by 301
- 2023SemDeDup: Data-efficient learning at web-scale through semantic deduplicationcited by 295
- 2023Can Language Models Solve Graph Problems in Natural Language?cited by 249
- 2023Data Diversity Matters for Robust Instruction Tuningcited by 76
- 2023Data-Juicer: A One-Stop Data Processing System for Large Language Modelscited by 52
- 2024SmallToLarge (S2L): Scalable Data Selection for Fine-tuning Large Language Models by Summarizing Training Trajectories of Small Modelscited by 43
- 2025Large-Scale Data Selection for Instruction Tuningcited by 34
- 2023A Preliminary Study of the Intrinsic Relationship between Complexity and Alignmentcited by 33
- 2024Smaller Language Models are capable of selecting Instruction-Tuning Training Data for Larger Language Modelscited by 32
- 2025Entropy-Gated Branching for Efficient Test-Time Reasoningcited by 21
- 2023LIMIT: Less Is More for Instruction Tuning Across Evaluation Paradigmscited by 14
- 2025LEAD: Iterative Data Selection for Efficient LLM Instruction Tuningcited by 13
- 2024Chasing Random: Instruction Selection Strategies Fail to Generalizecited by 12
- 2026Where Hindsight Credit Can Reside: A Signed-Capacity View of Token Updates in RLVRcited by 8
- 2025Evaluating Data Influence in Meta Learningcited by 4
- 2025Task-Specific Data Selection for Instruction Tuning via Monosemantic Neuronal Activationscited by 4
- 2026A Critical Look at Targeted Instruction Selection: Disentangling What Matters (and What Doesn't)cited by 3
- 2026DataChef: Cooking Up Optimal Data Recipes for LLM Adaptation via Reinforcement Learningcited by 2
- 2026Automatic Configuration of LLM Post-Training Pipelinescited by 2
- 2026LLM-AutoDP: Automatic Data Processing via LLM Agents for Model Fine-tuningcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.