EduDial is a large-scale multi-turn teacher‑student dialogue corpus covering 345 core knowledge points and 34,250 dialogue sessions, designed around Bloom’s taxonomy and ten questioning strategies such as situational, ZPD, and metacognitive questioning. The dataset includes differentiated teaching strategies for students at varying cognitive levels to provide targeted guidance. Using EduDial, the authors trained EduDial‑LLM 32B and introduced an 11‑dimensional evaluation framework that measures teaching quality and content quality, showing that most mainstream LLMs struggle with student‑centered teaching while EduDial‑LLM outperforms all baselines across all metrics.
By Shouang Wei, Min Zhang, Xin Lin, Bo Jiang, Zhongxiang Dai, Kun Kuang
arXiv:2606. 11744v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are now widely used for everyday learning, but the underlying interactions are typically unstructured chats rather than following a curriculum.
By Sidney Tio, Arunesh Sinha, Pradeep Varakantham
arXiv:2608.30426v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Current dialogue systems struggle with dynamic information retrieval, often leading to hallucinations and lower response accuracy. We address this by a...
By Markel Ferro, Oier Lopez de Lacalle
The paper proposes Layer-Informed Fine-Tuning (LIFT), a method that identifies and updates only the most functionally critical layers of large language models (LLMs) using a bottleneck identification mechanism based on sensitivity analysis. By focusing on layers that handle conceptualization, reasoning, and textualization, LIFT aims to accelerate training and enhance performance on reasoning tasks. Experiments demonstrate that this selective fine-tuning approach both speeds up the training process and yields significant performance gains.
By Junning Shao, Siwei Wang, Zhixuan Fang
arXiv:2607. 06160v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Synthesizing long-context supervised fine-tuning (SFT) data is a scalable way to enhance the long-context understanding of large language models (LLMs), yet existing approaches share three limitations: narrow task coverage, insufficient instruction difficulty, and a lack of faithfulness supervision.
By Chenhao Yuan, Yinhao Xu, Shuwen Xu, Xizhi Yang, Jiaxiang Liu, Chenxi Zhou, Shaoping Huang, Haolin Ren, Pengfei Cao, Jun Zhao, Kang Liu
arXiv:2608. 07509v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLMs are increasingly used for conversational tutoring, but effective tutoring requires more than correct answers.
By Fares Fawzi, Jiaxu Zhao, Tanya Nazaretsky, Tanja K\"aser
arXiv:2607. 21306v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as tutors and thought partners, helping users reason through problems.
By Verona Teo, Raghav Jain, Tobias Gerstenberg, Max Kleiman-Weiner
arXiv:2606. 06546v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) for education requires measuring how models teach, not only what they know.
By Tao Liu, Ye Lu, Ruohua Zhang, Siyu Song, Wentao Liu, Aimin Zhou, Hao Hao
arXiv:2510. 01427v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: At the core of Deep Research is knowledge mining, the task of extracting structured information from massive unstructured text in response to user instructions.
By Sipeng Zhang, Shuhuai Lin, Xinpeng Wei, Yihang Chen, Pin Qian, Su Wang, Huan Xu
arXiv:2606. 14142v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted as backbones for Generative Recommendation (GR), promising access to pretrained world knowledge.
By Yinhan He, Liam Collins, Bhuvesh Kumar, Jundong Li, Neil Shah, Donald Loveland
arXiv:2604. 01161v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) exhibiting test-time scaling behavior, such as extended reasoning traces and self-verification, have demonstrated remarkable performance on complex, long-term reasoning tasks.
By Gleb Rodionov, Roman Garipov, George Yakushev
The paper proposes using large language models (LLMs) to identify disagreements among models as a way to focus expert effort on revising codebooks for large‑scale text annotation. Three expert feedback methods are evaluated: editing LLM‑generated revisions (Codebook Verifying), answering questions about disagreements (Question Answering), and labeling disagreement cases with rationales (Rationale Labeling). Experiments on tutoring‑session transcripts show that Rationale Labeling achieves the highest LLM‑labeling accuracy (64.9%) compared to the expert‑revised codebook (57.8%), with Question Answering also outperforming the baseline (60.5%).
By Zeyu He, Zhuqian Zhou, Kirk Vanacore, Rene F. Kizilcec, Ting-Hao 'Kenneth' Huang