Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized various fields, yet their training efficiency is heavily reliant on effective data curation. While data selection has been widely studied, the strategic data organization for enhanced training remains an underexplored area, particularly since current LLMs are often trained for only one or a few epochs. This paper systematically explores the influence of data organization on LLM training by reusing pre-computed sample-level scores originally generated for data efficiency, thereby incurring minimal additional computational overhead. We identify and formalize four key guidances for optimizing data organization: Boundary Sharpening, Cyclic Scheduling, Curriculum Continuity, and Local Diversity. Guided by them, we introduce two novel data ordering methods termed STR and SAW. Extensive experiments across different model scales and data sizes, encompassing both pre-training and SFT stages, validate the effectiveness of our summarized guidances. They also demonstrate the robustness of our proposed data ordering methods in enhancing the stability and performance of LLM training.

Multiple-choice question (MCQ) datasets like Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) are widely used to evaluate the commonsense, understanding, and problem-solving abilities of large language models (LLMs). However, the open-source nature of these benchmarks and the broad sources of training data for LLMs have inevitably led to benchmark contamination, resulting in unreliable evaluation. To alleviate this issue, we propose the contamination-free MCQ benchmark called MMLU-CF, which reassesses LLMs’ understanding of world knowledge by averting both unintentional and malicious data contamination. To mitigate unintentional data contamination, we source questions from a broader domain of over 200 billion webpages and apply three specifically designed decontamination rules. To prevent malicious data contamination, we divide the benchmark into validation and test sets with similar difficulty and subject distributions. The test set remains closed-source to ensure reliable results, while the validation set is publicly available to promote transparency and facilitate independent evaluation. The performance gap between these two sets of LLMs will indicate the contamination degree on the validation set in the future. We evaluated over 40 mainstream LLMs on the MMLU-CF. Compared to the original MMLU, not only LLMs’ performances significantly dropped but also the performance rankings of them changed considerably. This indicates the effectiveness of our approach in establishing a contamination-free and fairer evaluation standard.