Organizations: 1Independent Researcher · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · 3Pusan National University · 4Shenzhen University of Advanced Technology · 5Monash University
Abstract
Instruction-tuning data are judged by quality metrics, and tuned models are judged by benchmarks, but both judgments pass through an output interface: the surface format in which an answer is written. Using gradient signatures across 12 tasks, four semantically equivalent interfaces, three model families, and controlled corruptions, we show that this interface confounds both measurements. Spectral statistics such as effective rank are provably invariant to interface rotation and empirically blind to semantic corruption, while the direction of the update carries the quality signal. The interface-varying residual is not noise: it identifies each unit's own target task perfectly across all three families. Capability itself is stored relative to the training interface: a skill that raises accuracy by more than 40 points under the training format can be nearly invisible under every other, and correcting a single generation budget flips the measured effect of fine-tuning on GSM8K from a gain into a large loss. Pre-registered interventions delimit where this geometry stops short of control. Data quality and model capability are interface-conditioned quantities, and current practice often reports the interface instead of the content.
Data attribution methods using gradient similarity are widely used to analyze and select training data for large language models, but what gradient similarity actually measures is debated. Some interpret it as identifying task-relevant skills, while other work reports that surface form is the main factor. We resolve this debate for supervised fine-tuning examples by varying task and answer format independently. Specifically, we render benchmarks in different answer formats, such that datasets can share a task without a format or a format without a task. We find that gradient alignment follows the answer format, as benchmark pairs sharing an answer format align strongly (disattenuated cosine near 0.4), while same benchmarks rendered with different answer format classes show no alignment (near 0.0). We demonstrate that this ordering holds from the earliest pretraining checkpoints through post-training, and across model scales and families. We then analyze the released selections of LESS, a gradient-based data selection method for instruction tuning, and find that each target's selections over-represent the target's own answer format. Hence, we demonstrate that gradient-based attribution methods track format similarity more than task semantics, meaning that such methods, as well as the semantic interpretation of the gradient, should be tested on data where answer format and task vary independently for greater robustness and reliability.
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.
Instruction tuning is meant to make language models follow user requests, yet it is unclear whether small models comply when an instruction conflicts with their usual task behavior. We study this across three tasks - multiple-choice question answering (MCQA), sentiment classification, and mathematical question answering - by pairing a standard instruction with a conflicting non-standard one (select an incorrect option, output the opposite sentiment, or return twice the answer). This cross-task design allows us to test whether resistance to conflicting instructions is tied to specific task characteristics or reflects a broader behavioral tendency. As all predictions are scored against the original ground truth, a model that ignores the non-standard instruction still appears accurate. Using standard accuracy, non-standard accuracy, and an Instruction-Following Failure Rate (IFFR), we evaluate instruction-tuned Qwen models across sizes. Both standard accuracy and instruction following generally improve with scale, although the pattern is not consistent across all tasks and datasets. Small models stay competent yet routinely ignore the non-standard instruction, while larger models show a clear gap between the two settings. These findings suggest that gains in task capability do not automatically provide reliable control over model behavior. Task competence and instruction following are therefore distinct abilities, and reporting only standard accuracy hides instruction-following failures.