datachef-cooking-up-optimal

name

datachef-cooking-up-optimal

description

Automate data recipe generation for LLM fine-tuning and adaptation. Generates executable data processing pipelines (filtering, synthesis, mixing, augmentation) that transform raw data sources into optimized training corpora for a target task. Trigger phrases: 'create a data recipe', 'optimize training data mix', 'build a data pipeline for fine-tuning', 'curate training data for task X', 'generate a data processing pipeline', 'mix datasets for domain adaptation'.

DataChef: Automated Data Recipe Generation for LLM Adaptation

This skill enables Claude to generate end-to-end data recipes — executable Python pipelines that transform raw data sources into optimized training corpora for fine-tuning LLMs on specific target tasks. Based on the DataChef framework, the approach treats data curation as a structured optimization problem: given a target benchmark and a pool of available data sources, produce a complete pipeline of filtering, synthesis, mixing, and augmentation steps that maximizes downstream task performance. Instead of manual trial-and-error data curation, this skill applies principled recipe design with proxy-based evaluation to iterate toward high-quality training data.

When to Use

• When the user wants to fine-tune or adapt an LLM to a specific domain (math, code, finance, medical, etc.) and needs to decide which datasets to use and how to process them
• When the user has multiple raw data sources and needs a pipeline to filter, clean, combine, and format them into a training corpus
• When the user asks "what data should I train on?" or "how do I mix these datasets for best results?"
• When the user needs to synthesize additional training examples to fill gaps in their existing data
• When the user wants to automate the data preparation step of an LLM training workflow
• When the user is iterating on data quality and needs a systematic approach rather than ad-hoc filtering

Key Technique

Data recipes as code. A data recipe is a tuple r = (g, d) where g is an executable Python pipeline and d is the resulting training dataset. The pipeline composes operations from a pool: filtering (quality-based selection, deduplication, keyword extraction), synthesis (LLM-generated augmentation, format conversion), mixing (weighted combination of multiple sources), and selection (relevance-based subsetting). The key insight is that the entire recipe — not just individual steps — must be optimized holistically, because interactions between processing steps matter.

Proxy reward for fast iteration. Evaluating a recipe normally requires full fine-tuning, which is prohibitively expensive. DataChef uses a Data Verifier — a rubric-based evaluator that scores sampled instances from the generated dataset on a scale: Invalid/Incorrect (0), Task Mismatch (0.4), Pass (1.0). This proxy score correlates with downstream performance and enables evaluating dozens of candidate recipes without training a model for each one. Penalties are applied for execution failures (empty dataset) and format violations.

Iterative refinement via RL. The framework uses Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) to learn recipe generation as a policy. Multiple candidate recipes are sampled per task, scored by the proxy verifier, and the policy is updated to favor higher-scoring recipes. This replaces the expert-in-the-loop iteration cycle with an automated search over recipe space. In practice, generating 32 candidates and selecting the best by proxy score matches or exceeds human-expert recipes.

Step-by-Step Workflow

1. Define the target task precisely. Specify the downstream benchmark or evaluation criteria — e.g., "math reasoning evaluated on AIME-style problems" or "financial QA evaluated on OpenFinData." Include example inputs/outputs of the target format so the recipe can align data to it.

2. Inventory available data sources. List all accessible datasets with metadata: name, domain, size, format (JSON lines, CSV, parquet), and a brief description of content. Categorize each as raw-web, curated-academic, synthetic, or domain-specific.

3. Analyze source-task relevance. For each data source, estimate relevance to the target task. Use keyword overlap, domain match, and format compatibility. Rank sources by expected utility. Discard clearly irrelevant sources early.

4. Design the filtering stage. Write Python functions that remove low-quality instances: deduplication (MinHash or exact match), length filtering (remove trivially short or excessively long), quality heuristics (perplexity threshold, language detection), and content filtering (remove toxic/irrelevant text).

5. Design the synthesis stage. Identify gaps between available data and target task requirements. Write prompts and scripts that use an LLM to: (a) reformat existing data into the target task format, (b) generate new examples for underrepresented categories, (c) augment with chain-of-thought reasoning or step-by-step solutions where needed.

6. Design the mixing stage. Determine proportions for combining filtered/synthesized sources. Use a weighted sampling strategy — oversample high-relevance sources, undersample generic ones. Specify total target corpus size based on compute budget (typically 10K-500K examples for adaptation).

7. Implement the recipe as an executable pipeline. Write a single Python script that chains all stages: load sources, filter, synthesize, mix, validate output format, and write the final training dataset. Include error handling for missing files, format mismatches, and empty intermediate results.

8. Evaluate with proxy scoring. Sample 50-100 instances from the output dataset. Score each against the target task rubric: Does it match the expected format? Is the content correct? Is it relevant to the target domain? Compute the average pass rate.

9. Iterate: generate multiple recipe variants. Vary the recipe parameters — different filtering thresholds, different synthesis prompts, different mixing ratios — to produce 4-8 candidate recipes. Score each with the proxy evaluator and select the top performer.

10. Validate end-to-end. Fine-tune on the selected recipe's output dataset and evaluate on the target benchmark. Compare against a naive baseline (unprocessed data concatenation) to confirm the recipe adds value.

Concrete Examples

Example 1: Math Domain Adaptation

User: "I want to fine-tune Llama-3-8B for math competition problems. I have access to MATH dataset, GSM8K, and some scraped competition problems from AoPS. How should I prepare the training data?"

Approach:

1. Define target: AMC/AIME-style problems requiring multi-step reasoning, evaluated by exact answer match.
2. Inventory sources: MATH (12.5K problems, diverse difficulty), GSM8K (8.5K grade-school problems), AoPS scrape (~20K raw HTML posts).
3. Relevance: MATH = high, AoPS = high but noisy, GSM8K = moderate (too easy but useful for format).
4. Filter: Deduplicate across all three sources. For AoPS: extract problem-solution pairs from HTML, discard posts without clear answers, filter by math-competition keywords.
5. Synthesize: Use an LLM to rewrite GSM8K solutions with step-by-step reasoning chains. Generate harder variants of MATH problems by increasing parameter values.
6. Mix: 50% MATH (filtered), 30% AoPS (cleaned), 15% synthesized hard variants, 5% GSM8K (reformatted).
7. Pipeline output: ~25K examples in chat format with problem/solution pairs.

Output recipe (pipeline sketch):

import json
from datasets import load_dataset, concatenate_datasets

def load_and_filter_math():
    ds = load_dataset("hendrycks/math", split="train")
    # Keep levels 3-5 for competition relevance
    return ds.filter(lambda x: x["level"] in ["Level 3", "Level 4", "Level 5"])

def clean_aops(raw_path):
    with open(raw_path) as f:
        posts = json.load(f)
    cleaned = []
    for post in posts:
        problem, solution = extract_problem_solution(post["html"])
        if problem and solution and len(solution) > 50:
            cleaned.append({"problem": problem, "solution": solution})
    return deduplicate(cleaned, threshold=0.85)

def synthesize_hard_variants(math_ds, llm_client, n=3000):
    prompts = [format_augmentation_prompt(ex) for ex in math_ds.select(range(1000))]
    return [llm_client.generate(p) for p in prompts]

def build_recipe():
    math_filtered = load_and_filter_math()          # ~6K
    aops_cleaned = clean_aops("aops_scrape.json")    # ~8K
    variants = synthesize_hard_variants(math_filtered, client)  # ~3K
    gsm_reformatted = reformat_gsm8k()               # ~1.5K

    combined = weighted_sample([
        (math_filtered, 0.50),
        (aops_cleaned, 0.30),
        (variants, 0.15),
        (gsm_reformatted, 0.05),
    ], total=25000)
    return format_as_chat(combined)

Example 2: Financial QA Adaptation

User: "I need to adapt a base model for financial question answering. I have SEC filings, financial news articles, and the FiQA dataset. Create a data recipe."

Approach:

1. Define target: financial QA — given a question about finance, produce an accurate grounded answer.
2. Inventory: SEC filings (raw text, ~100K documents), financial news (50K articles), FiQA (6.6K QA pairs).
3. Relevance: FiQA = high (direct QA), SEC filings = medium (need QA extraction), news = medium (need reformatting).
4. Filter SEC filings: Extract tables and key sections (risk factors, MD&A). Remove boilerplate. Filter news by financial-keyword density.
5. Synthesize: Use an LLM to generate QA pairs from SEC filing paragraphs and news articles — "Given this passage, generate a question and answer."
6. Mix: 40% FiQA original, 35% SEC-derived QA, 25% news-derived QA.

Output recipe (pipeline sketch):

def build_finance_recipe():
    fiqa = load_dataset("fiqa", split="train")

    sec_passages = extract_sec_sections("sec_filings/",
                                         sections=["risk_factors", "mda"])
    sec_passages = filter_by_length(sec_passages, min_len=100, max_len=2000)
    sec_qa = synthesize_qa_pairs(sec_passages, client,
                                  prompt="Generate a factual QA pair from this SEC filing excerpt.")
    sec_qa = filter_by_quality(sec_qa, min_answer_len=20)

    news_passages = load_news("financial_news.jsonl")
    news_passages = filter_by_keywords(news_passages,
                                        keywords=["revenue", "earnings", "market", "stock"])
    news_qa = synthesize_qa_pairs(news_passages, client,
                                   prompt="Generate a financial analysis question from this article.")

    combined = weighted_sample([
        (fiqa, 0.40),
        (sec_qa, 0.35),
        (news_qa, 0.25),
    ], total=15000)
    return format_as_instruction(combined)

Example 3: Quick Recipe Evaluation

User: "I already built a training dataset of 50K coding examples. How do I evaluate whether it's good before spending GPU hours on training?"

Approach:

1. Define target benchmark (e.g., HumanEval, LiveCodeBench).
2. Sample 100 instances from the dataset.
3. Apply rubric-based proxy scoring.

Output evaluation script:

def proxy_evaluate(dataset_path, target_task="code_generation", n_samples=100):
    dataset = load_jsonl(dataset_path)
    samples = random.sample(dataset, min(n_samples, len(dataset)))

    scores = []
    for instance in samples:
        # Rubric: format correctness, task relevance, content quality
        fmt_ok = check_format(instance, expected_keys=["instruction", "response"])
        relevant = check_relevance(instance, target_task, client)  # LLM judge
        quality = check_quality(instance, client)  # LLM judge: correct, coherent

        if not fmt_ok:
            scores.append(0.0)
        elif not relevant:
            scores.append(0.4)
        else:
            scores.append(1.0 if quality else 0.0)

    avg_score = sum(scores) / len(scores)
    print(f"Proxy score: {avg_score:.2f} (target: >0.75)")
    print(f"Format pass: {sum(1 for s in scores if s > 0)/len(scores):.0%}")
    print(f"Full pass: {sum(1 for s in scores if s == 1.0)/len(scores):.0%}")
    return avg_score

Best Practices

• Do: Start with the target task format and work backward — define what a perfect training example looks like before designing the pipeline.
• Do: Generate multiple recipe variants (at least 4-8) with different mixing ratios and filtering thresholds, then select the best by proxy score. The best-of-N strategy is central to DataChef's success.
• Do: Apply quality filtering aggressively early in the pipeline. A smaller, cleaner dataset almost always outperforms a larger, noisier one for domain adaptation.
• Do: Use LLM-based synthesis to convert existing data into the target format rather than collecting new data from scratch — reformatting is cheaper and often more effective.
• Avoid: Skipping the proxy evaluation step and jumping straight to full fine-tuning. Proxy scoring catches bad recipes (empty outputs, format mismatches, irrelevant data) at near-zero cost.
• Avoid: Mixing too many heterogeneous sources without explicit relevance filtering. Irrelevant data dilutes the signal and hurts adaptation performance — more data is not always better.

Error Handling

Problem	Symptom	Fix
Empty dataset after filtering	Pipeline produces 0 or very few examples	Relax filtering thresholds; check that filters aren't compounding to exclude everything
Format mismatch	Proxy scorer flags high "invalid format" rate	Add a format validation step after each pipeline stage; align output schema to training framework expectations
Low relevance score	Proxy reports >30% "task mismatch"	Re-examine source selection; add keyword or embedding-based relevance filtering before synthesis
Synthesis producing hallucinated content	Generated QA pairs contain fabricated facts	Ground synthesis prompts with source passages; add a verification step that checks answers against source text
Deduplication too aggressive	Useful near-duplicates removed (e.g., same problem, different solution paths)	Use higher similarity threshold (0.9+) or deduplicate only on input, not on input-output pairs
Recipe execution fails	Python errors in the pipeline script	Test each stage independently before composing; add try/except with logging around each transform

Limitations

• No substitute for actual training evaluation. Proxy scores correlate with downstream performance but are not perfect predictors. For high-stakes deployments, always validate the final recipe with a real training run.
• Depends on LLM access for synthesis. The synthesis stage requires API calls to a capable LLM, which adds cost and latency. For very large datasets, batch processing or local models may be necessary.
• Recipe quality bounded by source pool. If no relevant data sources exist for the target domain, no amount of filtering or mixing will produce good training data. The approach works best when there are several partially-relevant sources to combine.
• Proxy evaluation requires target task examples. You need at least a few examples of the target format to build the scoring rubric. Cold-start on entirely novel tasks is harder.
• Not designed for pretraining. This approach targets task-specific adaptation (fine-tuning on 10K-500K examples), not large-scale pretraining data curation where different dynamics apply.

Reference

Paper: DataChef: Cooking Up Optimal Data Recipes for LLM Adaptation via Reinforcement Learning — Chen et al., 2026. Look for: Section 3 (recipe formulation and Data Verifier rubric), Section 4 (GRPO training with proxy rewards), and Appendix C (case study recipes for math and finance domains).