@inproceedings{jia-etal-2026-makes,
    title = "What Makes a Good Curriculum? Disentangling the Effects of Data Ordering on {LLM} Mathematical Reasoning",
    author = "Jia, Yaning  and
      Zhang, Chunhui  and
      Diao, Xingjian  and
      Yuan, Xiangchi  and
      Ouyang, Zhongyu  and
      Ma, Chiyu  and
      Vosoughi, Soroush",
    editor = "Liakata, Maria  and
      Moreira, Viviane P.  and
      Zhang, Jiajun  and
      Jurgens, David",
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the {A}ssociation for {C}omputational {L}inguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)",
    month = jul,
    year = "2026",
    address = "San Diego, California, United States",
    publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
    url = "https://preview.aclanthology.org/ingest-acl/2026.acl-long.1591/",
    pages = "34472--34488",
    ISBN = "979-8-89176-390-6",
    abstract = "Curriculum learning (CL), which orders training data from easy to hard, has become a popular strategy for improving reasoning in large language models (LLMs). Yet prior work employs disparate difficulty metrics and training setups, leaving open fundamental questions: When does curriculum help? Which direction{---}forward or reverse{---}is better? And does the answer depend on what we measure? We address these questions through a unified offline evaluation framework that decomposes curriculum difficulty into five complementary dimensions: Problem Difficulty, Model Surprisal, Confidence Margin, Predictive Uncertainty, and Decision Variability. Through controlled post-training experiments on mathematical reasoning benchmarks with Llama3.1-8B, Mistral-7B, and Gemma3-4B, we find that: (i) no curriculum strategy dominates universally{---}the relative effectiveness of forward versus reverse CL depends jointly on model capability and task complexity; (ii) even within a single metric, samples at different difficulty levels produce distinct gains depending on task demands; and (iii) Task-aligned curricula focus on shaping the model{'}s final representations and generalization, whereas inner-state curricula modulate internal states such as confidence and uncertainty. Our findings challenge the notion of a universal curriculum strategy and offer actionable guidance across model and task regimes, with some metrics indicating that prioritizing decision-uncertain samples can further enhance learning outcomes."
}