SPICE: Submodular Penalized Information-Conflict Selection for Efficient Large Language Model Training
Powei Chang, Jinpeng Zhang, Bowen Chen, Chenyu Wang, Chenlu Guo, Yixing Zhang, Yukang Gao, JianXiang Xiang, Yue Gao, Chaoqun Sun, Yiyi Chen, Dongying kong
Abstract
Information-based data selection for instruction tuning is compelling: maximizing the log-determinant of the Fisher information yields a monotone submodular objective, enabling greedy algorithms to achieve a (1 -1/e) approximation under a cardinality budget. In practice, however, we identify alleviating gradient conflicts, misalignment between per-sample gradients, is a key factor that slows down the decay of marginal log-determinant information gains, thereby preventing significant loss of information. We formalize this via an ε-decomposition that quantifies the deviation from ideal submodularity as a function of conflict statistics, yielding data-dependent approximation factors that tighten as conflicts diminish. Guided by this analysis, we propose SPICE, a conflict-aware selector that maximizes information while penalizing misalignment, and that supports early stopping and proxy models for efficiency. Empirically, SPICE selects subsets with higher logdeterminant information than original criteria, and these informational gains translate into performance improvements: across 8 benchmarks with LLaMA2-7B and Qwen2-7B, SPICE uses only 10% of the data, yet matches or exceeds 6 methods including full-data tuning. This achieves performance improvements with substantially lower training cost. Code is available at code. Slower decay ⇒ larger total info Lower conflict ⇒ larger total info Figure 1: (a) Concept. At step t, the marginal information gain ∆ t is the incremental increase of Fisher Information utility when adding one sample under the current set S. Slower decay of ∆ t yields larger cumulative information under the same budget k. (b) Empirical. A low-conflict selection (conflict measured by negative cosine alignment to the mean gradient) exhibits slower decay and thus higher information utility at equal budgets.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 288516ac-bf9f-49e4-85dc-11ceb0c03ba9Builds on20
- Measuring Massive Multitask Language UnderstandingDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou et al.ICLR 2021 · 7,905 citations
- TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human FalsehoodsStephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, Owain EvansACL 2022 · 3,228 citations
- Gradient Surgery for Multi-Task LearningTianhe Yu, Saurabh Kumar, Abhishek Gupta, Sergey Levine et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 2,261 citations
- Conflict-Averse Gradient Descent for Multi-task learningBo Liu, Xingchao Liu, Xiaojie Jin, Peter Stone et al.NeurIPS 2021 · 686 citations
- Selection via Proxy: Efficient Data Selection for Deep LearningCody Coleman, Christopher Yeh, Stephen Mussmann, Baharan Mirzasoleiman et al.ICLR 2020 · 462 citations
Related papers
- BRIEF: Bi-level Coreset Selection for Efficient Instruction Tuning in LLMsChaoyuan Shen, Chi Zhang, Chengliang Chai, Jiacheng Wang et al.VLDB 2026 · 2 citations
- A Critical Look at Targeted Instruction Selection: Disentangling What Matters (and What Doesn’t)Nihal Nayak, Paula Rodriguez-Diaz, Neha Hulkund, Sara Beery et al.ICML 2026 · 2 citations
- RICo: Refined In-Context Contribution for Automatic Instruction-Tuning Data SelectionYixin Yang, Qingxiu Dong, Linli Yao, Fangwei Zhu et al.AAAI 2026
- LESS: Selecting Influential Data for Targeted Instruction TuningMengzhou Xia, Sadhika Malladi, Suchin Gururangan, Sanjeev Arora et al.ICML 2024 · 460 citations
- What Makes Good Data for Alignment? A Comprehensive Study of Automatic Data Selection in Instruction TuningWei Liu, Weihao Zeng, Keqing He, Yong Jiang et al.ICLR 2024 · 369 citations
