arXiv:2607. 25634v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We present AIriskEval-edu Demo, a platform that audits the pedagogical quality of instructional explanations and provides explainable audit results.
arXiv:2607. 01934v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This work introduces AIriskEval-edu-db2, a new dataset designed to train and evaluate auditors based on LLMs for an explainable pedagogical risk assessment in instructional content for grades K-12.
This work introduces AIriskEval-edu-db2, a new dataset designed to train and evaluate auditors based on LLMs for an explainable pedagogical risk assessment in instructional content for grades K-12. The dataset comprises 1,639 explanations from 170 curated ScienceQA questions, covering science, language arts, and social sciences.
arXiv:2606. 15127v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reasoning models are increasingly used in settings where the final answer is not the only object of review: educational tools may show students intermediate steps, decision-support systems may require human oversight, and audit workflows may inspect traces for misleading or biased input.
XAI-Arena proposes using large language models (LLMs) as judges to evaluate the quality of explainable AI (XAI) explanations, aiming for reproducibility, scalability, and multidimensional assessment. The framework assesses dimensions such as simplicity, clarity, task adequacy, trust calibration, actionability, transparency, faithfulness, and overall interpretability across different datasets, models, and stakeholder personas. Human validation shows a strong positive correlation between LLM-generated and human ratings (Spearman's rho = .693, p < .001), supporting the viability of LLM-based evaluations.
arXiv:2606. 05180v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated scoring models are increasingly used to assign rubric-based quality ratings to complex language performances, including classroom transcripts, yet they typically provide little insight into why a particular score is produced.
SafeTutors is a benchmark designed to evaluate both safety and pedagogical effectiveness of AI tutoring systems across mathematics, physics, and chemistry. It introduces a risk taxonomy of 11 harm dimensions and 48 sub‑risks based on learning‑science literature, focusing on issues such as answer over‑disclosure, misconception reinforcement, and loss of scaffolding. The study finds that all tested models exhibit broad harms, that larger scale does not mitigate these issues, and that multi‑turn interactions significantly increase pedagogical failures from 17.7% to 77.8%.
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) can evaluate explanations in recommender systems. It generates 18 explanation prototypes and has 14 LLMs rate them, comparing the results to human ratings from a user study. Findings show that while LLMs mimic human rating patterns and correlate moderately with human judgments, their absolute agreement is low and varies with model size and evaluation design, leading to four practical recommendations for using LLMs in this context.
The paper presents ESSE, a self‑explanation tutor that uses a large language model to give immediate feedback on students’ line‑by‑line explanations of introductory programming worked examples. It evaluates the LLM’s judgments against a domain expert and a crowd of non‑experts, finding that the model is reliable enough to serve as the tutor’s assessment engine. In an introductory Java course, the tutor’s feedback encourages students to persist, improves the completeness and conceptual depth of their explanations, and shows evidence of learning.
arXiv:2411.02455v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The rapid adoption of generative AI has created new opportunities for teaching, learning, and quality assurance. Existing applications, however, re...
arXiv:2606. 18617v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: There exist numerous tutor training platforms.
arXiv:2607. 11276v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Ensuring the quality of educational materials requires more than standard proofreading: textbooks must be audited for factual accuracy, domain-specific technical correctness, and linguistic quality simultaneously -- a task that general-purpose grammar checkers cannot address.
arXiv:2606. 29437v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The growing use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in education, software engineering, academic writing, and technical documentation raises a key question: how can we evaluate not only AI-assisted outputs, but also the interaction process that produced them?