# Provenance-Grounded Gating and Adaptive Recovery in Synthetic Post-Training Data Curation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.11127 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.11127/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in LLM preference optimization methods, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 15 of its 25 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 9 Jun 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [LLM preference optimization methods](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/llm-preference-optimization-methods/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [PubMedQA: A Dataset for Biomedical Research Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.06146/) (2019)
- [On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00661/) (2020)
- [RAFT: Reward rAnked FineTuning for Generative Foundation Model Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.06767/) (2023)
- [Self-Rewarding Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.10020/) (2024)
- [Beyond Human Data: Scaling Self-Training for Problem-Solving with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.06585/) (2023)
- [CUAD: An Expert-Annotated NLP Dataset for Legal Contract Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.06268/) (2021)
- [LM vs LM: Detecting Factual Errors via Cross Examination](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13281/) (2023)
- [FaithDial: A Faithful Benchmark for Information-Seeking Dialogue](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.10757/) (2022)
- [CheckEval: A reliable LLM-as-a-Judge framework for evaluating text generation using checklists](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.18771/) (2024)
- [AgentInstruct: Toward Generative Teaching with Agentic Flows](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.03502/) (2024)
- [Increasing Faithfulness in Knowledge-Grounded Dialogue with Controllable Features](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.06963/) (2021)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [CuratorKIT : Data Curation and Synthetic Data Generation for LLM Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.21631/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Synthetic post-training pipelines commonly filter generated samples with reward models or holistic LLM judges, yet two practices remain rarely examined together: whether the filtering signal is grounded in the source evidence that induced each generation, and whether rejected samples can be systematically recovered rather than permanently discarded. We present a controlled study of both questions across gate configurations, recovery strategies, and generator scales, using adversarially injected corpora to provide ground-truth failure labels. We find that exact source provenance improves faithfulness gating for stronger judges, that hallucination and reward gates reject largely disjoint sample populations making both necessary, and that an adaptive recovery pipeline combining failure diagnosis with targeted regeneration achieves higher yield, recovery rate, and injection recall than naive resampling. Downstream fine-tuning quality is driven primarily by generator scale, with filtration and recovery conditions contributing meaningfully but secondarily.