A Critical Look at Targeted Instruction Selection: Disentangling What Matters (and What Doesn’t)
Nihal Nayak, Paula Rodriguez-Diaz, Neha Hulkund, Sara Beery, David Alvarez-Melis
Abstract
Instruction fine-tuning of large language models (LLMs) often involves selecting a subset of instruction training data from a large candidate pool, using a small query set from the target task. Despite growing interest, the literature on targeted instruction selection remains fragmented and opaque: methods vary widely in selection budgets, often omit zero-shot baselines, and frequently entangle the contributions of key components. As a result, practitioners lack actionable guidance on selecting instructions for their target tasks. In this work, we aim to bring clarity to this landscape by disentangling and systematically analyzing the two core ingredients: data representation and selection algorithms. Our framework enables controlled comparisons across models, tasks, and budgets. We find that only gradient-based data representations choose subsets whose similarity to the query consistently predicts performance across datasets,models, and candidate pools. While no single method dominates, gradient-based representations paired with greedy round-robin selection often perform best on average at low budgets, but these gains diminish at larger budgets. Finally, we unify several existing selection algorithms as forms of approximate distance minimization between the selected subset and the query set, and support this view with new generalization bounds. More broadly, our findings provide critical insights and a foundation for more principled data selection in LLM fine-tuning. The code is available at https://github.com/dcml-lab /targeted-instruction-selection .
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 ee877340-37e6-4d52-a6b6-3acd8a1e18c1Builds on22
- Pythia: A Suite for Analyzing Large Language Models Across Training and ScalingStella Biderman, Hailey Schoelkopf, Quentin Gregory Anthony, Herbie Bradley et al.ICML 2023 · 1,822 citations
- The Flan Collection: Designing Data and Methods for Effective Instruction TuningShayne Longpre, Le Hou, Tu Vu, Albert Webson et al.ICML 2023 · 908 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
- 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
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
- Task-Aware Data Selection via Proxy-Label Enhanced Distribution Matching for LLM FinetuningHao Cheng, Rui Zhang, Ling Li, Na Di et al.ICLR 2026
- Evaluating the Zero-shot Robustness of Instruction-tuned Language ModelsJiuding Sun, Chantal Shaib, Byron C. WallaceICLR 2024 · 75 citations
- Less is More: High-value Data Selection for Visual Instruction TuningZikang Liu, Kun Zhou, Wayne Xin Zhao, Dawei Gao et al.ACM MM 2025 · 3 citations
- RICo: Refined In-Context Contribution for Automatic Instruction-Tuning Data SelectionYixin Yang, Qingxiu Dong, Linli Yao, Fangwei Zhu et al.AAAI 2026
