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:2610.35609v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Modeling the latent, multi-step reasoning processes of learners is a core challenge for adaptive tutoring systems, which often rely on simple right/w...
By Trystan Geoffre, Zheng Yuan, Thierry Geoffre
arXiv:2509. 26306v5 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Existing multi-agent learning approaches have developed interactive training environments to explicitly promote collaboration among multiple Large Language Models (LLMs), thereby constructing stronger multi-agent systems (MAS).
By Hehai Lin, Shilei Cao, Sudong Wang, Haotian Wu, Minzhi Li, Linyi Yang, Juepeng Zheng, Chengwei Qin
arXiv:2607. 28638v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As large language model (LLM) agents increasingly learn from experience, they primarily rely on trajectory-level reflection to extract insights.
By Yan Song, Xidong Feng, Bo Liu, Xinyu Cui, Haotian Fu, Zichen Liu, Mengyue Yang, Cheng Deng, Jian Zhao, Jun Wang
The paper presents the first dataset that captures how humans learn and use mechanisms in unfamiliar environments, using ARC‑AGI‑3 as a testbed. It includes 144 trajectories from 64 participants across 25 public games, each paired with time‑synchronized actions and think‑aloud audio, and 250 trajectories from large language model agents with and without harnesses. The dataset is annotated for mechanism triggers, action purposes, errors, and recovery, enabling a comparison of human and LLM cognition, highlighting differences in hypothesis testing, exploration, and use of qualitative representations.
By Shuzhi Liu, Archana Warrier, Dat Nguyen, Chengqi Zheng, Kevin Ellis, Yewen Pu
The paper introduces a computational model that encodes symbolic knowledge as mental programs combining natural language and source code, and uses LLM-guided Bayesian learning to sequentially infer these programs. It demonstrates that this approach satisfies data‑efficiency, uncertainty handling, and flexibility, reproducing human inductive learning and active inquiry behaviors such as anchoring and garden‑pathing. In contrast, pure LLMs and classic Bayesian models either fail the task, do not match human behavior, or require prohibitive computational resources.
By Wasu Top Piriyakulkij, Sam Acquaviva, Cassidy Langenfeld, Joshua Tenenbaum, Kevin Ellis