Chasing Random: Instruction Selection Strategies Fail to Generalize

Harshita Diddee, Daphne Ippolito
10/19/2024
cs.AIcs.CL

No official code found. Best implementation: ippolito-cmu/ChasingRandom (3 stars, last commit 2025-01-29).

Abstract

Prior work has shown that language models can be tuned to follow user instructions using only a small set of high-quality instructions. This has accelerated the development of methods that filter a large, noisy instruction-tuning datasets down to high-quality subset which works just as well. However, typically, the performance of these methods is not demonstrated across a uniform experimental setup and thus their generalization capabilities are not well established. In this work, we analyze popular selection strategies across different source datasets, selection budgets and evaluation benchmarks: Our results indicate that selection strategies generalize poorly, often failing to consistently outperform even random baselines. We also analyze the cost-performance trade-offs of using data selection. Our findings reveal that data selection can often exceed the cost of fine-tuning on the full dataset, yielding only marginal and sometimes no gains compared to tuning on the full dataset or a random subset.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations(1)

Official Repository for the Paper: Chasing Random: Instruction Selection Strategies Fail to Generalize

30Shell, PythonJan 25, 20251 years ago
data-selectioninstruction-tuning

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{diddee2024chasing,
  title  = {Chasing Random: Instruction Selection Strategies Fail to Generalize},
  author = {Harshita Diddee and Daphne Ippolito},
  year   = {2024},
  eprint = {2410.15225},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.15225v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2410.15225.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2410.15225)

Discussion