Yang Liu

Junyou Su, He Zhu, Xiao Luo et al.

Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) is fundamental to adapting large language models, yet training on complete datasets incurs prohibitive costs with diminishing returns. Existing data selection methods suffer from severe domain specificity: techniques optimized for general instruction-following fail on reasoning tasks, and vice versa. We observe that measuring entropy differences between base models and minimally instruction-tuned calibrated models reveals a pattern -- samples with the lowest differential entropy consistently yield optimal performance across domains, yet this principle manifests domain-adaptively: reasoning tasks favor entropy increase (cognitive expansion), while general tasks favor entropy decrease (cognitive compression). We introduce InstructDiff, a unified framework that operationalizes differential entropy as a domain-adaptive selection criterion through warmup calibration, bi-directional NLL filtering, and entropy-based ranking. Extensive experiments show that InstructDiff achieves 17\% relative improvement over full data training on mathematical reasoning and 52\% for general instruction-following, outperforming prior baselines while using only 10\% of the data.

Feiyang Huang, Yuqiang Sun, Fan Zhang et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promising performance in software vulnerability detection, particularly after domain-specific Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT). However, it remains unclear whether these models genuinely internalize vulnerability root causes or merely exploit surface-level functional patterns. While prior work documented related failures on pre-trained or zero-shot models, the SFT process itself, and how explicit reasoning supervision modulates it, remains under-explored. We study fine-tuned decoder-only LLMs under vanilla SFT and SFT with reasoning supervision, identifying a failure mode we term the Semantic Trap, characterized by three symptoms: pairing-sensitive performance, gap-dictated decisions, and fragility to semantic-preserving changes. To probe this, we propose TrapEval, an evaluation framework comprising two real-world datasets, V2P (vulnerable paired with patched code) and V2N (vulnerable paired with unrelated normal code), alongside semantic perturbations, CodeBLEU-based gap analysis, and an LLM-assisted reasoning failure taxonomy. Evaluating five representative LLMs fine-tuned with and without explicit reasoning (Chain-of-Thought), our results show vanilla SFT yields deceptively high scores on unpaired data (V2N) while failing all three symptoms. Models suffer high false-positive rates on V2P, degrade under perturbations, and exhibit a systematic dependency on the textual gap between vulnerable and patched code. Finetuning with explicit reasoning reduces these symptoms but costs recall; its lack of measurable gap-dependency partly reflects a floor effect rather than escaping the trap. Furthermore, our taxonomy reveals these models still misinterpret control flow and hallucinate API behavior, indicating current fine-tuning mitigates but does not eliminate reliance on surface features.