PreprintCited by 12Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMachine Learning and Data Classification

A Survey on Data Selection for Language Models

Open access
Albalak, Alon, Elazar, Yanai, Xie, Sang Michael, Longpre, Shayne, Lambert, Nathan, Wang, Xinyi, Muennighoff, Niklas, Hou, Bairu +6 more·2024·arXiv

Abstract

A major factor in the recent success of large language models is the use of enormous and ever-growing text datasets for unsupervised pre-training. However, naively training a model on all available data may not be optimal (or feasible), as the quality of available text data can vary. Filtering out data can also decrease the carbon footprint and financial costs of training models by reducing the amount of training required. Data selection methods aim to determine which candidate data points to include in the training dataset and how to appropriately sample from the selected data points. The promise of improved data selection methods has caused the volume of research in the area to rapidly expand. However, because deep learning is mostly driven by empirical evidence and experimentation on large-scale data is expensive, few organizations have the resources for extensive data selection research. Consequently, knowledge of effective data selection practices has become concentrated within a few organizations, many of which do not openly share their findings and methodologies. To narrow this gap in knowledge, we present a comprehensive review of existing literature on data selection methods and related research areas, providing a taxonomy of existing approaches. By describing the current landscape of research, this work aims to accelerate progress in data selection by establishing an entry point for new and established researchers. Additionally, throughout this review we draw attention to noticeable holes in the literature and conclude the paper by proposing promising avenues for future research.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2402.16827

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Leveraging LLMs for data augmentation and synthetic data generation can create diverse training datasets, which in turn improves the generalization of attribution models.

    “Moreover, leveraging LLMs for data augmentation and synthetic data generation can create diverse training datasets, which in turn improves the generalization of attribution models [Albalak et al., 2024].”

    From Authorship Attribution in the Era of LLMs: Problems, Methodologies, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as Albalak et al., 2024

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Albalak, A., Elazar, Y., Xie, S. M., Longpre, S., Lambert, N., Wang, X., Muennighoff, N., Hou, B., Pan, L., Jeong, H., Raffel, C., Chang, S., Hashimoto, T., & Wang, W. Y.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392223203
Cited by
12
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (2048122)
  • University of California, Santa Barbara
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
Keywords
data selection, large language models, unsupervised pre-training, training data filtering, data sampling, training cost reduction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review