Dongming Shan

Tiantian Mi, Dongming Shan, Zhen Huang et al.

Data Darwinism (Part I) established a ten-level hierarchy for data processing, showing that stronger processing can unlock greater data value. However, that work relied on manually designed strategies for a single category. Modern pretraining corpora comprise hundreds of heterogeneous categories spanning domains and content types, each demanding specialized treatment. At this scale, manual strategy design becomes prohibitive. This raises a key question: can strategies evolve in an automated way? We introduce DataEvolve, a framework that enables strategies to evolve through iterative optimization rather than manual design. For each data category, DataEvolve operates in a closed evolutionary loop: it identifies quality issues, generates candidate strategies, executes them on sampled data, evaluates results, and refines approaches across generations. The process accumulates knowledge through an experience pool of discovered issues and a strategy pool tracking performance across iterations. Applied to 8 categories spanning 672B tokens from Nemotron-CC, DataEvolve produces Darwin-CC, a 504B-token dataset with strategies evolved through 30 iterations per category. Training 3B models on 500B tokens, Darwin-CC outperforms raw data (+3.96 points) and achieves a 44.13 average score across 18 benchmarks, surpassing DCLM, Ultra-FineWeb, and FineWeb-Edu, with strong gains on knowledge-intensive tasks such as MMLU. Analysis shows evolved strategies converge on cleaning-focused approaches: targeted noise removal and format normalization with domain-aware preservation, echoing the L4 (Generative Refinement) principles from Part I. Ablation studies confirm iterative evolution is essential: optimized strategies outperform suboptimal ones by 2.93 points, establishing evolutionary strategy design as feasible and necessary for pretraining-scale data curation.

Chao Ding, Mouxiao Bian, Pengcheng Chen et al.

Despite strong performance in medical question-answering, the clinical adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) is critically hampered by their opaque 'black-box' reasoning, limiting clinician trust. This challenge is compounded by the predominant reliance of current medical LLMs on corpora from scientific literature or synthetic data, which often lack the granular expert validation and high clinical relevance essential for advancing their specialized medical capabilities. To address these critical gaps, we introduce a highly clinically relevant dataset with 31,247 medical question-answer pairs, each accompanied by expert-validated chain-of-thought (CoT) explanations. This resource, spanning multiple clinical domains, was curated via a scalable human-LLM hybrid pipeline: LLM-generated rationales were iteratively reviewed, scored, and refined by medical experts against a structured rubric, with substandard outputs revised through human effort or guided LLM regeneration until expert consensus. This publicly available dataset provides a vital source for the development of medical LLMs that capable of transparent and verifiable reasoning, thereby advancing safer and more interpretable AI in medicine.