The DOI matches its DataCite record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Towards Alignment-Centric Paradigm: A Survey of Instruction Tuning in Large Language Models
Abstract
Instruction tuning is a pivotal technique for aligning large language models (LLMs) with human intentions, safety constraints, and domain-specific requirements. This survey provides a comprehensive overview of the full pipeline, encompassing (i) data collection methodologies, (ii) full-parameter and parameter-efficient fine-tuning strategies, and (iii) evaluation protocols. We categorized data construction into three major paradigms: expert annotation, distillation from larger models, and self-improvement mechanisms, each offering distinct trade-offs between quality, scalability, and resource cost. Fine-tuning techniques range from conventional supervised training to lightweight approaches, such as low-rank adaptation (LoRA) and prefix tuning, with a focus on computational efficiency and model reusability. We further examine the challenges of evaluating faithfulness, utility, and safety across multilingual and multimodal scenarios, highlighting the emergence of domain-specific benchmarks in healthcare, legal, and financial applications. Finally, we discuss promising directions for automated data generation, adaptive optimization, and robust evaluation frameworks, arguing that a closer integration of data, algorithms, and human feedback is essential for advancing instruction-tuned LLMs. This survey aims to serve as a practical reference for researchers and practitioners seeking to design LLMs that are both effective and reliably aligned with human intentions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
In the citing paper
“However, procuring sufficient high-quality SFT data remains challenging (Maosongcao et al., 2025;Szep et al., 2025;Han et al., 2025).”
From The landscape of agentic reinforcement learning for LLMs: a survey (2025) · cites this paper as Han et al., 2025
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalization
Sanh, V., Webson, A., Raffel, C., Bach, S. H., Sutawika, L., Alyafeai, Z., Chaffin, A., Stiegler, A., Scao, T. L., Raja, A., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2110.08207 · Cited by 612
Self-citationAuto-GPT for Online Decision Making: Benchmarks and Additional Opinions
Yang, H., Yue, S., & He, Y. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.02224 · Cited by 44
A Closer Look at the Limitations of Instruction Tuning
Ghosh, S., Evuru, C. K. R., Kumar, S., S, R., Aneja, D., Jin, Z., Duraiswami, R., & Manocha, D. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.05119 · Cited by 5
Cited by
The landscape of agentic reinforcement learning for LLMs: a survey
Zhang, G., Geng, H., Yu, X., Yin, Z., Zhang, Z., Tan, Z., Zhou, H., Li, Z., Xue, X., Li, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.02547 · Cited by 229
Metadata
- Authors
- Han, X., Yang, J., Wang, T., Bi, Z., Song, X., Hao, J., & Song, J.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- arXiv
- 2508.17184
- References
- 3
- Type
- Preprint
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.