How Instruction and Reasoning Data shape Post-Training: Data Quality through the Lens of Layer-wise Gradients
Ming Li, Yanhong Li, Ziyue Li, Tianyi Zhou
Abstract
As the post-training of large language models (LLMs) advances from instruction-following to complex reasoning tasks, understanding how different data affect finetuning dynamics remains largely unexplored. In this paper, we present a spectral analysis of layer-wise gradients induced by low/high-quality instruction and reasoning data for LLM post-training. Our analysis reveals that widely-studied metrics for data evaluation, e.g., IFD, InsTag, Difficulty, and Reward, can be explained and unified by spectral properties computed from gradients' singular value decomposition (SVD). Specifically, higher-quality data are usually associated with lower nuclear norms and higher effective ranks. Notably, effective rank exhibits better robustness and resolution than nuclear norm in capturing subtle quality differences. For example, reasoning data achieves substantially higher effective ranks than instruction data, implying richer gradient structures on more complex tasks. Our experiments also highlight that models within the same family share similar gradient patterns regardless of their sizes, whereas different model families diverge significantly. Providing a unified view on the effects of data quality across instruction and reasoning data, this work illuminates the interplay between data quality and training stability, shedding novel insights into developing better data exploration strategies for post-training.
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 8f739200-9eaf-4c6e-a6e2-af0170cf4542Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on21
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Finetuned Language Models are Zero-Shot LearnersJason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y. Zhao, Kelvin Guu et al.ICLR 2022 · 4,966 citations
- Gradient Surgery for Multi-Task LearningTianhe Yu, Saurabh Kumar, Abhishek Gupta, Sergey Levine et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 2,261 citations
- Estimating Training Data Influence by Tracing Gradient DescentGarima Pruthi, Frederick Liu, Satyen Kale, Mukund SundararajanNeurIPS 2020 · 784 citations
- LESS: Selecting Influential Data for Targeted Instruction TuningMengzhou Xia, Sadhika Malladi, Suchin Gururangan, Sanjeev Arora et al.ICML 2024 · 460 citations
Related papers
- What Happened in LLMs Layers when Trained for Fast vs. Slow Thinking: A Gradient PerspectiveMing Li, Yanhong Li, Tianyi ZhouACL 2025 · 27 citations
- Spectral Signatures of Large Language ModelsZhuoying Zhang, Ishan V. Prasad, Yuanzhe Hu, Zihang Liu et al.KDD 2026
- Tracing the Representation Geometry of Language Models from Pretraining to Post-trainingMelody Zixuan Li, Kumar Krishna Agrawal, Arna Ghosh, Komal Kumar Teru et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 38 citations
- A Narrowing Geometry in Contaminated ReasoningJiakuan Xie, Pengfei Cao, Kang Liu, Jun ZhaoICML 2026
- What Do Learning Dynamics Reveal About Generalization in LLM Mathematical Reasoning?Katie Kang, Amrith Setlur, Dibya Ghosh, Jacob Steinhardt et al.ICML 2025
