MADS: Model-Aware Diverse Core Set Selection for Instruction Tuning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Instruction fine-tuning is employed to enhance the instruction-following ability of large language models (LLMs). As the amount of instruction fine-tuning data increases, selecting the optimal core set becomes particularly important. However, ensuring the diversity of the core set remains a significant challenge. Existing methods predominantly distinguish different training data based on the text features themselves, decoupled from LLMs' own understanding and representation of the data. To address this issue, we propose a Model-Aware Diverse Core Set Selection method, which distinguishes data features based on the neural activation states during LLM inference. This approach serves as an efficient instantiation of coverage-based selection using model-intrinsic activation features to ensure the diversity in the core set. We extensively evaluate our method on six benchmarks that cover five distinct tasks. In our method, the core set selected by the 3B-parameter LLM performs effectively when utilized to fine-tune larger models with 7B, 8B, and 13B parameters. Experimental results on the Alpaca-GPT4 dataset, which comprises 52K instruction-response pairs, show that the core set, sized at 15% of the original dataset and selected by Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct, achieves an average improvement of 2.5% when fine-tuning four larger base models compared with training on the full dataset. The experimental results demonstrate that our method enhances model performance on multiple downstream tasks while reducing data requirements.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 41 of its 59 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 May 2026.
Builds on
41 of 59 references.
References · 41
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
- 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
- 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,018
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,919
- 2022Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructionscited by 2,674
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,359
29 more
- 2023WizardLM: Empowering large pre-trained language models to follow complex instructionscited by 1,116
- 2019Deep Batch Active Learning by Diverse, Uncertain Gradient Lower Boundscited by 602
- 2021Deep Learning on a Data Diet: Finding Important Examples Early in Trainingcited by 529
- 2024LESS: Selecting Influential Data for Targeted Instruction Tuningcited by 514
- 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
- 2024Continual Learning of Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 228
- 2021Active Learning by Acquiring Contrastive Examplescited by 154
- 2018Dissecting Contextual Word Embeddings: Architecture and Representationcited by 146
- 2023MoDS: Model-oriented Data Selection for Instruction Tuningcited by 107
- 2018On Coresets for Logistic Regressioncited by 65
- 2018Evaluating Layers of Representation in Neural Machine Translation on Part-of-Speech and Semantic Tagging Taskscited by 56
- 2023Maybe Only 0.5% Data is Needed: A Preliminary Exploration of Low Training Data Instruction Tuningcited by 56
- 2025The Best Instruction-Tuning Data are Those That Fitcited by 48
- 2024SmallToLarge (S2L): Scalable Data Selection for Fine-tuning Large Language Models by Summarizing Training Trajectories of Small Modelscited by 43
- 2024Tracing Representation Progression: Analyzing and Enhancing Layer-Wise Similaritycited by 36
- 2018Deep RNNs Encode Soft Hierarchical Syntaxcited by 34
- 2023Rethinking the Instruction Quality: LIFT is What You Needcited by 33
- 2024G-DIG: Towards Gradient-based Diverse and High-quality Instruction Data Selection for Machine Translationcited by 29
- 2024Unleashing the Power of Data Tsunami: A Comprehensive Survey on Data Assessment and Selection for Instruction Tuning of Language Modelscited by 29
- 2024Improving Data Efficiency via Curating LLM-Driven Rating Systemscited by 26
- 2024Decoding Probing: Revealing Internal Linguistic Structures in Neural Language Models using Minimal Pairscited by 24
- 2024Balanced Data Sampling for Language Model Training with Clusteringcited by 22
- 2025Improving Influence-based Instruction Tuning Data Selection for Balanced Learning of Diverse Capabilitiescited by 22
- 2025Finding the Sweet Spot: Preference Data Construction for Scaling Preference Optimizationcited by 9
- 2025Beyond Similarity: A Gradient-based Graph Method for Instruction Tuning Data Selectioncited by 7
- 2023DEFT: Data Efficient Fine-Tuning for Pre-Trained Language Models via Unsupervised Core-Set Selectioncited by 6
- 2024IterSelectTune: An Iterative Training Framework for Efficient Instruction-Tuning Data Selectioncited by 6
- 2025ActivationReasoning: Logical Reasoning in Latent Activation Spacescited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.