What Makes Good Instruction-Tuning Data? An In-Context Learning Perspective
About
Instruction-tuning datasets often contain substantial redundancy and low-quality samples, necessitating effective data selection methods. We propose an instruction data selection framework based on weighted in-context influence (wICI), which measures how effectively each candidate example reduces instruction-following difficulty for semantically related peers. Through systematic experiments, we address three key questions: what constitutes effective instruction tuning data from an in-context perspective, whether sample difficulty correlates with in-context influence, and how in-context influence translates to instruction tuning effectiveness. Experiments across multiple models and benchmarks demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms existing baselines under constrained data budgets, while empirically showing that sample difficulty negatively correlates with in-context influence.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Instruction Following | AlpacaEval 2.0 | Win Rate7.5 | 722 | |
| Question Answering | ARC Challenge | Accuracy (ARC)58.98 | 598 | |
| General Knowledge Evaluation | MMLU | MMLU Accuracy64.9 | 127 | |
| Instruction Following | IFEval (test) | IFEval Score51.19 | 88 | |
| Question Answering | MedQA (test) | Accuracy46.03 | 67 | |
| Question Answering | MedMCQA (test) | -- | 48 | |
| Question Answering | MMLU Med | Accuracy65.33 | 34 | |
| Instruction Following | WizardLM (test) | Score1.308 | 25 | |
| Multi-turn Chat Evaluation | MT-Bench | MT-Bench Score5.28 | 20 | |
| Instruction Following | AlpacaEval GPT-4 (test) | AlpacaEval Win Rate (GPT-4)1.261 | 18 |