Benchmarking Large Language Models for Personalized Guidance in AI-Enhanced Learning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.05346v2
• Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 13:08:29 GMT
• Title: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Personalized Guidance in AI-Enhanced Learning
• Authors: Bo Yuan, Jiazi Hu,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly envisioned as intelligent assistants for personalized learning.<n>This study presents an empirical comparison of three state-of-the-art LLMs on a tutoring task simulating a realistic learning setting.
• Score: 4.990353320509215
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly envisioned as intelligent assistants for personalized learning, systematic head-to-head evaluations in authentic learning scenarios remain scarce. This study presents an empirical comparison of three state-of-the-art LLMs on a tutoring task simulating a realistic learning setting. Using a dataset containing a student's responses to ten mixed-format questions with correctness labels, each model was asked to (i) analyze the quiz to identify underlying knowledge components, (ii) infer the student's mastery profile, and (iii) generate targeted guidance for improvement. To mitigate subjectivity and evaluator bias, Gemini was employed as a virtual judge to perform pairwise comparisons across multiple dimensions: accuracy, clarity, actionability, and appropriateness. Results analyzed via the Bradley-Terry model reveal that GPT-4o is generally preferred, producing feedback that is more informative and better structured than its counterparts, whereas DeepSeek-V3 and GLM-4.5 demonstrate intermittent strengths but lower consistency. These findings highlight the feasibility of deploying LLMs as advanced teaching assistants for individualized support and provide methodological insights for subsequent empirical research on LLM-driven personalized learning.

Related papers

• Measuring Teaching with LLMs [4.061135251278187]
  This paper uses custom Large Language Models built on sentence-level embeddings.<n>We show that these specialized models can achieve human-level and even super-human performance with expert human ratings above 0.65.<n>We also find that aggregate model scores align with teacher value-added measures, indicating they are capturing features relevant to student learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-27T03:42:04Z)
• TutorBench: A Benchmark To Assess Tutoring Capabilities Of Large Language Models [10.963195858672627]
  TutorBench is a dataset and evaluation benchmark designed to rigorously evaluate the core tutoring skills of large language models (LLMs)<n>Samples are drawn from three common tutoring tasks: (i) generating adaptive explanations tailored to a student's confusion, (ii) providing actionable feedback on a student's work, and (iii) promoting active learning through effective hint generation.<n>We evaluate 16 frontier LLMs on TutorBench and present a detailed analysis of their performance and behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-03T01:41:09Z)
• Curse of Knowledge: When Complex Evaluation Context Benefits yet Biases LLM Judges [72.3356133063925]
  The paradigm of large language models (LLMs) as judges has emerged as a scalable solution, yet prior work primarily focuses on simple settings.<n>Our in-depth analysis offers crucial insights for improving the accuracy and verifiability of evaluation signals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-03T15:48:33Z)
• Using Large Language Models to Assess Teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge [3.2489371952043213]
  This study examines whether large language models introduce construct-irrelevant variance (CIV) in ways similar to or different from machine learning (ML) and human raters.<n>Using generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs), we compared variance components and rater-level scoring patterns across three scoring sources.<n>Results indicate that scenario-level variance was minimal across tasks, while rater-related factors contributed substantially to CIV.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-25T18:45:53Z)
• IDA-Bench: Evaluating LLMs on Interactive Guided Data Analysis [60.32962597618861]
  IDA-Bench is a novel benchmark evaluating large language models in multi-round interactive scenarios.<n>Agent performance is judged by comparing its final numerical output to the human-derived baseline.<n>Even state-of-the-art coding agents (like Claude-3.7-thinking) succeed on 50% of the tasks, highlighting limitations not evident in single-turn tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T09:37:52Z)
• VOILA: Evaluation of MLLMs For Perceptual Understanding and Analogical Reasoning [63.0285363282581]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have become a powerful tool for integrating visual and textual information.<n>We introduce VOILA, a benchmark designed to evaluate MLLMs' perceptual understanding and abstract relational reasoning.<n>We reveal that current MLLMs struggle to comprehend inter-image relationships and exhibit limited capabilities in high-level relational reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T23:36:19Z)
• Training an LLM-as-a-Judge Model: Pipeline, Insights, and Practical Lessons [9.954960702259918]
  This paper introduces Themis, a fine-tuned large language model (LLMs) judge that delivers context-aware evaluations.<n>We provide a comprehensive overview of the development pipeline for Themis, highlighting its scenario-dependent evaluation prompts.<n>We introduce two human-labeled benchmarks for meta-evaluation, demonstrating that Themis can achieve high alignment with human preferences in an economical manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-05T08:35:55Z)
• A Systematic Examination of Preference Learning through the Lens of Instruction-Following [83.71180850955679]
  We use a novel synthetic data generation pipeline to generate 48,000 instruction unique-following prompts.<n>With our synthetic prompts, we use two preference dataset curation methods - rejection sampling (RS) and Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS)<n>Experiments reveal that shared prefixes in preference pairs, as generated by MCTS, provide marginal but consistent improvements.<n>High-contrast preference pairs generally outperform low-contrast pairs; however, combining both often yields the best performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T15:38:39Z)
• MME-Survey: A Comprehensive Survey on Evaluation of Multimodal LLMs [97.94579295913606]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have garnered increased attention from both industry and academia.<n>In the development process, evaluation is critical since it provides intuitive feedback and guidance on improving models.<n>This work aims to offer researchers an easy grasp of how to effectively evaluate MLLMs according to different needs and to inspire better evaluation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-22T18:59:54Z)
• Automated Feedback in Math Education: A Comparative Analysis of LLMs for Open-Ended Responses [0.0]
  This study aims to explore the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in facilitating automated feedback in math education. We employ Mistral, a version of Llama catered to math, and fine-tune this model for evaluating student responses by leveraging a dataset of student responses and teacher-written feedback for middle-school math problems. We evaluate the model's performance in scoring accuracy and the quality of feedback by utilizing judgments from 2 teachers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T16:57:45Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Human-AI Collaborative Essay Scoring: A Dual-Process Framework with LLMs [13.262711792955377]
  This study explores the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated essay scoring. We propose an open-source LLM-based AES system, inspired by the dual-process theory. We find that our system not only automates the grading process but also enhances the performance and efficiency of human graders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-12T07:50:10Z)
• A Large Language Model Approach to Educational Survey Feedback Analysis [0.0]
  This paper assesses the potential for the large language models (LLMs) GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 to aid in deriving insight from education feedback surveys.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T17:57:23Z)
• Improving Open Information Extraction with Large Language Models: A Study on Demonstration Uncertainty [52.72790059506241]
  Open Information Extraction (OIE) task aims at extracting structured facts from unstructured text. Despite the potential of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT as a general task solver, they lag behind state-of-the-art (supervised) methods in OIE tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-07T01:35:24Z)
• KoLA: Carefully Benchmarking World Knowledge of Large Language Models [87.96683299084788]
  We construct a Knowledge-oriented LLM Assessment benchmark (KoLA) We mimic human cognition to form a four-level taxonomy of knowledge-related abilities, covering $19$ tasks. We use both Wikipedia, a corpus prevalently pre-trained by LLMs, along with continuously collected emerging corpora, to evaluate the capacity to handle unseen data and evolving knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T17:20:46Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.