A helps B while B hurts A: directed transfer in instruction-tuning mixture
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Adapting a language model to a specialized corpus means choosing which instruction-tuning tasks to train on under a fixed budget, and testing one choice costs a fine-tuning run. Common heuristics add more source tasks or pick sources similar to the target. The first assumes transfer is never negative; the second, that it is symmetric. We show that both assumptions fail: task A can help task B while B hurts A, so helpfulness is a signed property of ordered source--target pairs. We introduce the transfer map, a signed estimate of how much each source helps or hurts each held-out target. We fit the map in hundreds of fine-tuning runs on Qwen3 and Mistral models from 0.6B to 32B parameters, with all sources drawn from one corpus and no training examples from the target. The map predicts a held-out target's accuracy on unseen mixtures: recorded before those runs, its predictions have less than half the error of a mixture-agnostic baseline. The map is specific to its target and corpus but transfers across model scale: a mixture selected in advance at one size beats training on all source tasks at every other size we tested. Transfer is thus a property of the data. The map selects the tasks that help and drops the one that interferes: accuracy on the reasoning targets (causal explanation, multi-hop questions and methodological critique) rises by up to 14 percentage points over training on all source tasks.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 42 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Sep 2026.
Builds on
42 of 48 references.
References · 42
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,049
- 2021Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learnerscited by 3,747
- 2022Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Modelscited by 2,997
- 2022Super-NaturalInstructions: Generalization via Declarative Instructions on 1600+ NLP Taskscited by 858
- 2018Taskonomy: Disentangling Task Transfer Learningcited by 631
- 2023An Empirical Study of Catastrophic Forgetting in Large Language Models During Continual Fine-tuningcited by 622
- 2024LESS: Selecting Influential Data for Targeted Instruction Tuningcited by 514
- 2023DoReMi: Optimizing Data Mixtures Speeds Up Language Model Pretrainingcited by 385
- 2019Which Tasks Should Be Learned Together in Multi-task Learning?cited by 367
- 2023A Rank Stabilization Scaling Factor for Fine-Tuning with LoRAcited by 231
- 2023How Abilities in Large Language Models are Affected by Supervised Fine-tuning Data Compositioncited by 222
- 2021Efficiently Identifying Task Groupings for Multi-Task Learningcited by 218
30 more
- 2024Data Mixing Laws: Optimizing Data Mixtures by Predicting Language Modeling Performancecited by 179
- 2024RegMix: Data Mixture as Regression for Language Model Pre-trainingcited by 172
- 2021ExT5: Towards Extreme Multi-Task Scaling for Transfer Learningcited by 161
- 2020Intermediate-Task Transfer Learning with Pretrained Models for Natural Language Understanding: When and Why Does It Work?cited by 127
- 2020Exploring and Predicting Transferability across NLP Taskscited by 126
- 2023Skill-it! A Data-Driven Skills Framework for Understanding and Training Language Modelscited by 120
- 2024DsDm: Model-Aware Dataset Selection with Datamodelscited by 103
- 2025Does Math Reasoning Improve General LLM Capabilities? Understanding Transferability of LLM Reasoningcited by 101
- 2023Exploring the Benefits of Training Expert Language Models over Instruction Tuningcited by 80
- 2024Instruction Pre-Training: Language Models are Supervised Multitask Learnerscited by 63
- 2021What to Pre-Train on? Efficient Intermediate Task Selectioncited by 62
- 2024Synthetic continued pretrainingcited by 56
- 2024Adaptive Data Optimization: Dynamic Sample Selection with Scaling Lawscited by 46
- 2024SciLitLLM: How to Adapt LLMs for Scientific Literature Understandingcited by 29
- 2024Learning to Generate Instruction Tuning Datasets for Zero-Shot Task Adaptationcited by 27
- 2023Identification of Negative Transfers in Multitask Learning Using Surrogate Modelscited by 20
- 2024SMART: Submodular Data Mixture Strategy for Instruction Tuningcited by 16
- 2025Data Mixing Optimization for Supervised Fine-Tuning of Large Language Modelscited by 12
- 2023TaskWeb: Selecting Better Source Tasks for Multi-task NLPcited by 11
- 2024Instruction Matters: A Simple yet Effective Task Selection for Optimized Instruction Tuning of Specific Taskscited by 6
- 2026SPICE: Submodular Penalized Information-Conflict Selection for Efficient Large Language Model Trainingcited by 5
- 2025Task-Specific Data Selection for Instruction Tuning via Monosemantic Neuronal Activationscited by 4
- 2025Donors and Recipients: On Asymmetric Transfer Across Tasks and Languages with Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuningcited by 4
- 2025ADAPT: Learning Task Mixtures for Budget-Constrained Instruction Tuningcited by 3
- 2026Dynamic Proxy-Mixing: Transferring Replay Controllers from Small to Large Models for Continual Instruction Tuningcited by 3
- 2026A Local Perturbation Theory for Cross-Domain Interference and Recovery in Multi-Domain RLcited by 3
- 2025Latent Traits and Cross-Task Transfer: Deconstructing Dataset Interactions in LLM Fine-tuningcited by 2
- 2026Harmony in Diversity: Multi-domain Contrastive Policy Optimization for Large Reasoning Modelscited by 2
- 2025Learning Task Mixtures from Task Affinities: A Probabilistic Graphical Model for Supervised Fine-Tuningcited by 1
- 2026One Step, One Lead: Mitigating Higher-Order Interference in Multi-Domain Reinforcement Learning via Cross-Step Controlcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.