arXiv:2608. 05166v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We present an evaluation of cognitive bias expression in state-of-the-art instruction-tuned LLMs under realistic multi-turn interaction settings.
By Sachini Weerasekara, Sagar Kamarthi, Jacqueline Isaacs
arXiv:2608.22993v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Students increasingly use LLMs as tutors for coursework and problem solving. Little is known about the level of assistance LLMs provide when students u...
By Suhyeon Lee, Juneha Baek, Jaehyeong Park, Donghyuk Shin
arXiv:2608. 14161v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs exhibit social biases that can produce inaccurate and discriminatory inferences, posing risks in high-stakes applications.
By Varsha Ramineni, Hossein A. Rahmani, Jerome Ramos, Karin Sevegnani, Emine Yilmaz
The paper examines how large language models (LLMs) can be biased by irrelevant social contexts when evaluating teachers, using a large U.S. classroom transcript dataset. It shows that spurious contexts can shift model ratings by up to 1.48 points on a 7‑point scale and that standard mitigation methods like SFT and DPO are insufficient. The authors introduce Debiasing‑DPO, a method that combines contrastive reasoning‑augmented DPO with SFT, which reduces bias by 84% and improves predictive accuracy by 52% on Llama and Qwen Instruct models.
By Hyunji Nam, Dorottya Demszky
arXiv:2609.16993v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Large Language Models are now common in student assessment, but we know little about how student demographics affect their use. Sometimes, considerin...
By Donya Rooein, Luca Benedetto, Dirk Hovy
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
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:2605.30051v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: A key part of developing large language model (LLM)-powered, automated tutoring tools is student simulation, i.e., using LLMs to role-play as stude...
By Zhangqi Duan, Shuyan Huang, Alexander Scarlatos, Jaewook Lee, Simon Woodhead, Andrew Lan
arXiv:2609.28470v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Artificial intelligence offers an unprecedented opportunity to augment human capabilities, yet progress at the frontier has focused primarily on advanc...
By Curtis Northcutt, Inaara Hasmani, Kevin Feng, Trevor Khangi, Andreas Plesner, Jonas Mueller
Persuasion is a core dynamic of natural language communication, shaping how large language models (LLMs) update beliefs, resolve disagreements, and reach decisions. As LLMs increasingly debate, advise, and think collaboratively with humans and each other, resistance to harmful persuasion becomes a core requirement for reliable behavior.
arXiv:2510. 12857v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are now widely deployed in user-facing applications, reaching hundreds of millions of users worldwide.
By Robin Staab, Jasper Dekoninck, Maximilian Baader, Martin Vechev
The paper introduces a novel framework for assessing second‑order bias in large language models (LLMs), defined as bias in how an LLM judges the acceptability of biased content. Using principles from entitlement epistemology, the authors design a reasoning task that asks LLMs to determine whether a biased text is acceptable for specific demographic groups, and propose two metrics to quantify biased judgments. Experiments on both open‑source and closed‑source models reveal that the task bypasses safety guardrails, uncovers systematic variations across target groups, and demonstrates that models still rely on demographic labels when evaluating bias.
By Ramaravind Kommiya Mothilal, Terry Jingchen Zhang, Raiyan Ahmed, Zhijing Jin, Shion Guha, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed