LLMs are effective representations that assimilate vast amounts of knowledge during pretraining, but post-training is necessary for models to reliably access this knowledge and "know what they know." We observe an interesting rank equilibrium between knowledge stored in the weights and the data stream passing through the model. Across all model layers, we find that the hidden states (data stream) follow a U-shaped pattern, showing substantial compression in early layers and a steep rise during the late-layer decoding phase. In contrast, the weight rank follows an inverted U-shaped pattern, with very low rank in the early and late layers and high rank in the middle. We interpret this as an in-and-out information interplay: intermediate activations do not need to carry content that the weights can supply later, so they primarily preserve what the weights cannot provide. Motivated by this observation, we propose a model-aware data selection method, CAP (Counterfactual Assimilation Profile), which can determine whether a data candidate contains information accessible to the current model by utilizing the divergence gap in early- and late-layer representations between model-generated and reference responses. Across math, code, and science domains, CAP delivers 35.4% greater average improvement over the base model than the strongest baseline under different selection budgets. With only 10% of the data pool, CAP surpasses or matches full-pool training on math and science. We further show that CAP transfers to multimodal data selection and is robust to response horizon and noise.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The in-and-out information interplay. (a) Across model layers, weight stable rank (blue, circles) follows an inverted U-shape, while hidden-state stable rank (red, squares) follows the complementary U-shape: activations compress through the early and middle layers and re-expand near the output for decoding, as weight rank declines. (b) This complementary pattern recurs across model families, scales, and architectures; the full 12-model survey is in Appendix B .
Table 2: Accuracy after SFT on subsets of the 80k-example pools. The final column reports the macro-average accuracy at the 8k budget, with improvement over the base model shown in parentheses. Best and second best are marked per column. Results with standard deviations are in Appendix C .
Figure 3: Mean accuracy versus selection budget on math (left), code (middle), and science (right). Shaded regions show one standard deviation.
Method
1k
2k
4k
8k
Base (no SFT)
0.00
Random
30.77
29.12
35.71
40.66
PPL
26.92
32.97
35.71
41.76
CAP (ours)
26.92
34.62
40.66
46.15
Table 3: Multimodal selection on Molmo2-O-7B: held-out document-split accuracy from a 20k candidate pool.
Figure 4: Accuracy at the 8k budget versus selection cost in utilization-weighted GPU-hours. The symmetric log scale retains the zero-cost random baseline.
R
Math
Code
Science
16
71.95
32.32
38.88
48
76.04
35.37
39.05
144
72.93
31.71
39.72
Random
69.37
30.49
38.19
Best baseline
70.81
35.37
38.51
Table 4: Effect of response horizon R at the 8k budget.
Figure 5: CAP separates unassimilated information from unstructured difficulty. We inject 5% random junk into a clean pool and score 300 clean and 300 noise examples with Marin-8B-Base. Left: perplexity ranks the noise above the clean distribution. Right: CAP ranks the same noise below 99.7% of clean examples.
Figure 6: Optimization trajectories under CAP and random selection. Joint-trajectory PCA projection over a shared held-out eval loss surface. The full figure, including held-out loss versus optimizer step, is in Appendix G .
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 7: Weight and data stable rank over normalized decoder depth for 12 models. Table 5 lists their sizes, attention mechanisms, and architectures.
Model
Size
Decoder attention
Type
Modality
GPT OSS 20B
20B
GQA, alternating full/window
MoE
Text
GPT OSS 120B
120B
GQA, alternating full/window
MoE
Text
Qwen3 8B Base
8B
GQA
Dense
Text
Qwen2.5 72B
72B
GQA
Dense
Text
Llama 3.1 8B
8B
GQA
Dense
Text
Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
70B
GQA
Dense
Text
Appendix
Table 5: The 12-model rank survey. Size is the nominal parameter count; GPT OSS sizes are total rather than active parameters. Full/window denotes alternating full and sliding-window attention. VL denotes vision-language.
Method
1k
2k
4k
8k
Base model
61.11
Random
63.99 ± 1.32
65.88 ± 1.31
68.01 ± 1.28
69.37 ± 1.27
PPL
62.02 ± 1.34
64.97 ± 1.31
65.88 ± 1.31
68.92 ± 1.27
IFD
61.41 ± 1.34
62.70 ± 1.33
65.05 ± 1.31
66.34 ± 1.30
QuRating
61.11 ± 1.34
63.76 ± 1.32
67.78 ± 1.29
66.11 ± 1.30
LESS
60.27 ± 1.35
64.29 ± 1.32
68.16 ± 1.28
70.81 ± 1.25
Appendix
Table 6: Full math results on GSM8K.
Method
1k
2k
4k
8k
Base model
30.49
Random
28.05 ± 3.52
32.93 ± 3.68
32.32 ± 3.66
30.49 ± 3.61
PPL
30.49 ± 3.61
28.05 ± 3.52
28.05 ± 3.52
32.93 ± 3.68
IFD
25.00 ± 3.39
28.66 ± 3.54
26.83 ± 3.47
28.66 ± 3.54
QuRating
29.27 ± 3.56
28.66 ± 3.54
31.71 ± 3.64
32.93 ± 3.68
LESS
31.71 ± 3.64
32.32 ± 3.66
33.54 ± 3.70
35.37 ± 3.74
Appendix
Table 7: Full code results on HumanEval.
Method
1k
2k
4k
8k
Base model
32.55
Random
33.89 ± 0.75
35.50 ± 0.76
37.57 ± 0.76
38.19 ± 0.77
PPL
34.83 ± 0.76
34.87 ± 0.75
36.41 ± 0.76
37.72 ± 0.76
IFD
33.85 ± 0.75
34.56 ± 0.75
37.48 ± 0.76
38.27 ± 0.76
QuRating
34.14 ± 0.75
35.06 ± 0.75
38.76 ± 0.76
38.51 ± 0.77
LESS
34.57 ± 0.75
36.03 ± 0.76
36.59 ± 0.76
38.39 ± 0.76
Appendix
Table 8: Full science results on MMLU-Pro-5.
Domain
Method
Wall min.
GPUs
Allocated GPU-h
Avg. GPU util. (%)
Util.-weighted GPU-h
Math
Random
0.001
0
0.000
0.0
0.000
PPL
4.476
4
0.298
81.6
0.243
IFD
34.159
4
2.277
93.8
2.130
QuRating
11.749
4
0.783
53.2
0.415
k-center
1.321
1
0.022
10.1
0.009
LESS
60.173
4
4.012
77.2
3.086
Appendix
Table 9: Selection cost for each method and domain. The highlighted column is the primary compute measure used in Figure 4 and the main-text analysis. Values are rounded for readability.
Method
FinanceBench
MMLU-Pro Bus.
MMLU-Pro Econ.
Macro avg
PPL
19.33
34.60
47.39
33.77
Random
18.67
37.01
48.82
34.83
CAP (ours)
22.00
37.14
49.05
36.06
Appendix
Table 10: Finance: 2k selected from 80k of Sujet-Finance-Instruct ( Sujet AI, 2024 ) , evaluated on FinanceBench ( Islam et al., 2023 ) and MMLU-Pro splits.
Method
Diagnosis accuracy
Reasoning recall
PPL
14.38
32.71
Random
13.60
34.72
CAP (ours)
15.16
35.79
Appendix
Table 11: Medicine: 2k selected from the 13k MedCaseReasoning pool ( Wu et al., 2025 ) .
Method
2k
8k
20k
40k
60k
Max gain
Random
29.27
32.93
34.76
38.41
42.07
+11.59
PPL
30.49
31.71
34.15
37.80
43.90
+13.41
CAP (ours)
32.32
32.93
36.59
40.24
45.73
+15.24
Appendix
Table 12: Code at enlarged budgets (HumanEval pass@1, base 30.49).
Figure 8: Code accuracy versus enlarged budgets.
Figure 9: SFT trajectories of CAP and random selection in the plane spanned by the top two PCs of the joint parameter path, over a shared held-out 5-shot GSM8K loss surface.
Setting
Value
Base model
marin-community/marin-8b-base
Fine-tuning type
full parameter (no adapters)
Chat template
llama3
Max sequence length
2048 tokens
Sequence packing
disabled
Optimizer
AdamW ( adamw_torch )
Appendix
Table 13: SFT configuration, shared by every method and budget.
Data selection is increasingly used to reduce the cost of large language model (LLM) fine-tuning, with recent methods prioritizing samples by current utility, diversity, quality, or influence. This paper studies a different question: when fine-tuning occurs over multiple stages, can selection strategies that look optimal now make the model less adaptable later? We introduce a long-horizon view of LLM data selection in which a selector is evaluated not only by immediate task performance, but also by future adaptation speed, forgetting, capability imbalance, and out-of-distribution robustness. We compare representative random, loss-based, gradient-based, diversity-based, quality-based, and utility-diversity selection families under a unified multi-stage protocol. Through controlled experiments designed to instantiate this protocol, we show how short-term selectors can exhibit rank reversal: they improve the current stage while slowing subsequent learning and increasing forgetting. We formalize this behavior as myopic selection, provide a simple local analysis of why it can occur, and propose a diagnostic Long-Horizon Aware Selection (LHAS) objective that augments immediate utility with coverage, future-proxy transfer, and anti-concentration terms. The study argues that data selection should be evaluated as a training intervention that shapes the model's learning trajectory, rather than only as a local data-efficiency mechanism.
Yuxin Yang, Aoxiong Zeng, Xiangquan Yang
Shanghai University · East China Normal University
In reasoning supervised fine-tuning, candidate responses for the same instruction can differ substantially in how well they match the student's current distribution. Recent likelihood-based response selection methods suggest that responses closer to the student distribution provide more effective supervision, motivating the hypothesis that high-likelihood responses may generally be preferable for fine-tuning. In this paper, we revisit this intuition and show that the value of likelihood-based data selection depends critically on model capacity and training duration. Through controlled experiments on mathematical reasoning, using students ranging from 1.5B to 8B parameters and supervision generated by stronger teacher models, we observe a clear capacity-dependent ``{\color{SMALLCOLOR}Fast-Fit} / {\color{LARGECOLOR}Slow-Gain}'' pattern. High-likelihood data provides faster and more stable early improvements, especially for smaller models, but low-likelihood data becomes increasingly beneficial for larger models when training is allowed to continue longer. To explain this phenomenon, we analyze learning dynamics, showing that small models often fail to absorb low-likelihood supervision and instead fall into shallow or repetitive behaviors, while larger models are better able to move toward the teacher distribution under such data. We further provide a capacity-constrained theoretical view of distillation that clarifies how data difficulty, data span, and student capacity jointly govern transfer. Overall, our findings show that effective data selection for reasoning should be aware of model capacity and computing budget rather than based on a single universal preference for high-likelihood supervision.
Cuong Dang, Hoang Anh Just, Ruoxi Jia
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA, USA
Data selection plays a central role in modern large language model training, as the quality of training data strongly influences downstream performance. A common approach is to curate a development set that encodes the desired skills (e.g., reasoning or multilinguality) and select data that are similar to them. Existing methods compute similarity using cosine distance over either the model's hidden states or gradients. However, we observe that this max-similarity strategy induces a mode-seeking bias: the selected data clusters tightly around the development samples. To address this, we propose ICLHerd, a data selection framework that leverages the von Mises-Fisher kernel to balance mode-seeking with mode-averaging. We further introduce in-context learning as a validation proxy, enabling efficient hyperparameter search over the balance trade-off. Results show that ICLHerd outperforms existing LLM data selection algorithms, highlighting the importance of balancing mode-seeking and mode-averaging.
Yuqiao Wen, Lili Mou
Dept. Computing Science & Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute (Amii), University of Alberta · Canada CIFAR AI Chair