Pick the Mixture, Not the Samples: Combinatorial Data Selection for LLMs
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Data selection for LLM fine-tuning faces two facts about real training: data pools draw from many distinct domains, and evaluation spans diverse tasks. As a result, the same sample helps different tasks differently, and samples interact during training so that a subset's value is not the sum of its parts. Current data-selection methods leave these realities largely unaddressed. We formalize them as Combinatorial Data Selection (CDS), a framework that separates attribution (how samples are scored) from selection (which subset to pick) and models the non-additive interactions among samples. On a real instruction-tuning data pool, we find substantial cross-domain complementarity (joint utility exceeds the sum of singletons), alongside redundancy within domains. Inspired by this, we propose Mixture-then-Select, a two-stage algorithm that first decides how many samples to take from each domain, then ranks samples within each domain by attribution score. Theoretically, the gap to the optimal subset is linear in the selection size and independent of data pool size. Empirically, Mixture-then-Select outperforms strong baselines by 20 to 54%, is robust across attribution methods, and works across different models and data pool sizes. The framework also extends to the data purchasing problem under a budget constraint when sample prices vary. Our findings suggest that allocating selection across domains offers a promising path toward more efficient and effective data selection for modern LLMs.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Sep 2026.
Builds on
27 of 43 references.
References · 27
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
- 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,886
- 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,741
- 2023LIMA: Less Is More for Alignmentcited by 1,100
- 2019Data Shapley: Equitable Valuation of Data for Machine Learningcited by 629
- 2020Estimating Training Data Influence by Tracing Gradient Descentcited by 580
- 2021Deep Learning on a Data Diet: Finding Important Examples Early in Trainingcited by 533
- 2024LESS: Selecting Influential Data for Targeted Instruction Tuningcited by 532
- 2020Dataset Condensation with Gradient Matchingcited by 516
- 2023DoReMi: Optimizing Data Mixtures Speeds Up Language Model Pretrainingcited by 399
- 2023What Makes Good Data for Alignment? A Comprehensive Study of Automatic Data Selection in Instruction Tuningcited by 364
15 more
- 2020Influence Functions in Deep Learning Are Fragilecited by 252
- 2024RegMix: Data Mixture as Regression for Language Model Pre-trainingcited by 177
- 2024Superfiltering: Weak-to-Strong Data Filtering for Fast Instruction-Tuningcited by 138
- 2022Data Banzhaf: A Robust Data Valuation Framework for Machine Learningcited by 132
- 2023DataInf: Efficiently Estimating Data Influence in LoRA-tuned LLMs and Diffusion Modelscited by 123
- 2019Data Valuation using Reinforcement Learningcited by 116
- 2014Lazier Than Lazy Greedycited by 99
- 2022Faith-Shap: The Faithful Shapley Interaction Indexcited by 69
- 2021PRISM: A Rich Class of Parameterized Submodular Information Measures for Guided Subset Selectioncited by 51
- 2017Guarantees for Greedy Maximization of Non-submodular Functions with Applicationscited by 35
- 2019Submodular Maximization Beyond Non-negativity: Guarantees, Fast Algorithms, and Applicationscited by 21
- 2024SMART: Submodular Data Mixture Strategy for Instruction Tuningcited by 17
- 2023Data Market Design through Deep Learningcited by 8
- 2025Fairshare Data Pricing via Data Valuation for Large Language Modelscited by 8
- 2025DIDS: Domain Impact-aware Data Sampling for Large Language Model Trainingcited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.