arXiv:2606. 28186v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Predicting human item difficulty is central to educational assessment, where reliable estimates support fairness and effective test construction.
arXiv:2606. 12767v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating procedural reasoning in AI-supported learning systems requires question-answer datasets that are both learner-like and grounded in the instructional knowledge the system is expected to use.
arXiv:2603.17815v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Understanding and evaluating multi-step reasoning in LLMs at the level of individual steps remains a key challenge. Process reward models (PRMs) pr...
arXiv:2607. 22633v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Table Question Answering (TableQA) aims to reason over tables to answer user queries.
arXiv:2606. 06546v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) for education requires measuring how models teach, not only what they know.
arXiv:2606. 12422v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The integration of large language models (LLMs) into educational assessment represents a transformative shift in classroom grading practices.
arXiv:2603.00889v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable reasoning capabilities, largely enabled by supervised fine-tuning (SFT)- and reinforce...
arXiv:2606. 07226v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Human creativity has emerged as a critical competency in the era of large language models.
The paper introduces Knowledge Tracing Leveraging Problem‑Solving Process (KT‑PSP), a method that incorporates students’ problem‑solving steps to model mathematical proficiency more comprehensively than traditional knowledge tracing. It presents the KT‑PSP‑25 dataset and a new framework, StatusKT, which uses a teacher‑student‑teacher LLM pipeline to extract proficiency indicators, generate responses, and evaluate mastery. Experiments show that StatusKT improves prediction accuracy and offers interpretable explanations by explicitly modeling proficiency.
SMRC is a new method that aligns large language models with student reasoning for mathematical error correction. It treats student reasoning as a multi‑step decision problem and uses Monte Carlo Tree Search to find optimal correction paths, while a breadth‑first search guided by the model generates reward signals that are back‑propagated to supervise intermediate steps. The authors also introduce the MSEB benchmark of 158 high‑school math problems and a dual evaluation protocol focusing on solution accuracy and correct‑step retention, showing that SMRC outperforms existing methods on several datasets.
SPEAR (Symbolic Process Evaluation and Alignment Reward) is a training‑free, plug‑and‑play reward method for on‑policy distillation in reinforcement learning. It converts natural‑language reasoning traces into domain‑adaptive symbolic milestones and uses the longest common subsequence to align student exploration with teacher milestones, producing a dense, order‑aware reward that enforces logical consistency without an external neural verifier. Experiments on math, science, and commonsense reasoning tasks show that SPEAR effectively bridges the reasoning gap between student and teacher models through sequence‑level distillation with efficient dense process rewards.
PotARCin expands the ARC benchmark by evaluating abstract reasoning across five dimensions—Definition, Classification, Constrained Generation, Editing, and Inversion—using programmatic generation of new task instances. The study shows a 25‑52 percentage‑point performance gap between standard ARC evaluation and PotARCin, and reveals that multi‑dimensional assessment can reorder models that appear equivalent under single‑metric accuracy. Additionally, a new held‑out set, P‑ARC, demonstrates low model accuracy (1‑8%) across all dimensions, highlighting the need for more comprehensive tests of abstract reasoning.