It is shown that the transfer relationship between different difficulty levels characterizes the optimization dynamics induced by curriculum learning, which in turn explains the effectiveness of different curriculum schedules, and formalize this relationship as Relative Transfer, a principled measure of cross-difficulty knowledge transfer.
Abstract
Curriculum learning has been widely adopted in the post-training of large language models by organizing training data from easy to hard. However, its effectiveness varies substantially across reasoning tasks, suggesting that no single curriculum is universally optimal and raising a fundamental question: what determines when curriculum learning works? In this paper, we answer this question by analyzing the optimization dynamics induced by different curriculum schedules. We show that the transfer relationship between different difficulty levels characterizes the optimization dynamics induced by curriculum learning, which in turn explains the effectiveness of different curriculum schedules, and formalize this relationship as Relative Transfer, a principled measure of cross-difficulty knowledge transfer. Based on this measurement, we derive Transfer-aware Dynamic Curriculum Sampling (TDCS), which dynamically adjusts the sampling distribution according to the estimated transfer relationship throughout training. Extensive experiments on multiple reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that TDCS consistently outperforms representative scheduling strategies across different tasks, model scales, and training paradigms. More importantly, our work provides a unified optimization-based explanation of curriculum learning through cross-difficulty transfer.
These extensions focus on two approaches: curriculum learning and inference-time iterative feedback, where a Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct model is used as a critic to provide corrective advice on previous round’s incorrect answers, allowing the model to learn from its own mistakes and make revisions.
This project asks a focused question: does ordering training data by difficulty make RLOO fine-tuning more effective on a reasoning task, and does a performance-adaptive curriculum outperform a fixed one?
This framework extends these paradigms by combining dynamic natural-language scaffolding with a non-monotonic decay schedule directly tied to stepwise RL sample rewards, and introduces an asymmetric Teacher-Student curriculum framework.
This work introduces LITTLECURRICULUM, a curated 88B-token pretraining corpus tailored to U.S. elementary school material, which yields LITTLELEARNER, a model with sufficient language competence for open-ended evaluation, yet with clear knowledge and capability boundaries mapped to interpretable curriculum guidelines.
Fanfei Li, J. Zeller, Manuel Prada-Corral et al.· 0 citations
Whether an adaptive , knowledge-aware curriculum that mirrors this behaviour improves RLVR reasoning is asked, and—since the question also bears on whether RLVR creates new ability or merely sharpens existing ability—the authors study both on Countdown.
This project explores the Countdown arithmetic reasoning task: given a set of numbers, produce an arithmetic expression that evaluates to a target value on the Qwen 2.5-0.5B base model and proposes two complementary extensions targeting these failure modes.