DysLexLens: A Low-Resource LLM Framework for Analysing Dyslexic Learners Insights from Online Forums

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.27619v1
• Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2026 00:32:32 GMT
• Title: DysLexLens: A Low-Resource LLM Framework for Analysing Dyslexic Learners Insights from Online Forums
• Abstract summary: DysLexLens is a framework to analyse dyslexic learners experience with AI.<n>It transforms noisy social media posts into a dictionary-driven corpora.<n>It generates verifiable query responses and enables response evaluation.
• Score: 1.5134249257632053
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Dyslexic learners increasingly use artificial intelligence (AI) tools to support reading, writing, organisation, and study-related tasks. However, their lived experiences with these tools remain largely underexamined. This paper proposes DysLexLens, a low-resource LLM framework, designed to analyse dyslexic learners experience with AI through online forum discussions. DysLexLens is designed as an end-to-end, evidence-traceable architecture which transforms noisy social media posts into a dictionary-driven corpora, provides knowledge-graph (KG)-based question reasoning, generates verifiable query responses, and enables response evaluation through quantitative and human-grounded assessment. DysLexLens has four key features. First, it employs a dictionary-driven filtering method to construct a more focused Reddit corpus on dyslexia and AI, filtering out noisy and weakly related posts to improve the relevance of data collected from low-resource forum contexts. Second, it integrates LLM-assisted semantic analysis with KG-based query reasoning to uncover meaningful patterns. Third, it has quantitative evaluation metrics (RAGAS and Query Robustness) to measure LLM-generated response performance. Fourth, it provides structured qualitative validation guidelines for assessing response quality, with a specific focus on hallucination and evidence alignment. We demonstrate the effectiveness of DysLexLens using dyslexia-related Reddit forum data and 30 questions. The results show its potential generalisability to other low-resource forum data contexts. DysLexLens, sample data, questions and evaluation results are available at Github to support reproducibility.

Related papers

• Assessment Design in the AI Era: A Method for Identifying Items Functioning Differentially for Humans and Chatbots [0.0]
  The rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) in education raises profound challenges for assessment design.<n>We introduce a statistically principled approach for identifying items on which humans and LLMs show systematic response differences.<n>The method is based on Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-24T19:39:39Z)
• Large Language Models as Students Who Think Aloud: Overly Coherent, Verbose, and Confident [0.8564319625930894]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in AI-based tutoring systems. Can they faithfully model novice reasoning and metacognitive judgments?<n>We evaluate LLMs as novices using 630 think-aloud utterances from chemistry tutoring problems with problem-solving logs of student hint use, attempts, and problem context.<n>We compare LLM-generated reasoning to human learner utterances under minimal and extended contextual prompting, and assess the models' ability to predict step-level learner success.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-01T04:46:38Z)
• ELAIPBench: A Benchmark for Expert-Level Artificial Intelligence Paper Understanding [49.67493845115009]
  ELAIPBench is a benchmark curated by domain experts to evaluate large language models' comprehension of AI research papers.<n>It spans three difficulty levels and emphasizes non-trivial reasoning rather than shallow retrieval.<n>Experiments show that the best-performing LLM achieves an accuracy of only 39.95%, far below human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-12T11:11:20Z)
• Comprehensiveness Metrics for Automatic Evaluation of Factual Recall in Text Generation [46.697788643450785]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been found to produce outputs that are incomplete or selectively omit key information.<n>In sensitive domains, such omissions can result in significant harm comparable to that posed by factual inaccuracies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-09T08:22:24Z)
• Disambiguation in Conversational Question Answering in the Era of LLMs and Agents: A Survey [54.90240495777929]
  Ambiguity remains a fundamental challenge in Natural Language Processing (NLP)<n>With the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), addressing ambiguity has become even more critical due to their expanded capabilities and applications.<n>This paper explores the definition, forms, and implications of ambiguity for language driven systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-18T20:53:41Z)
• Potential and Perils of Large Language Models as Judges of Unstructured Textual Data [0.631976908971572]
  This research investigates the effectiveness of LLM-as-judge models to evaluate the thematic alignment of summaries generated by other LLMs.<n>Our findings reveal that while LLM-as-judge offer a scalable solution comparable to human raters, humans may still excel at detecting subtle, context-specific nuances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T14:49:14Z)
• Systematic Task Exploration with LLMs: A Study in Citation Text Generation [63.50597360948099]
  Large language models (LLMs) bring unprecedented flexibility in defining and executing complex, creative natural language generation (NLG) tasks. We propose a three-component research framework that consists of systematic input manipulation, reference data, and output measurement. We use this framework to explore citation text generation -- a popular scholarly NLP task that lacks consensus on the task definition and evaluation metric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-04T16:41:08Z)
• Can Large Language Models Identify Authorship? [16.35265384114857]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated an exceptional capacity for reasoning and problem-solving. This work seeks to address three research questions: (1) Can LLMs perform zero-shot, end-to-end authorship verification effectively? (2) Are LLMs capable of accurately attributing authorship among multiple candidates authors (e.g., 10 and 20)?
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-13T03:22:02Z)
• HGOT: Hierarchical Graph of Thoughts for Retrieval-Augmented In-Context Learning in Factuality Evaluation [20.178644251662316]
  We introduce the hierarchical graph of thoughts (HGOT) to enhance the retrieval of pertinent passages during in-context learning. The framework employs the divide-and-conquer strategy to break down complex queries into manageable sub-queries. It refines self-consistency majority voting for answer selection, which incorporates the recently proposed citation recall and precision metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-14T18:41:19Z)
• InfoLossQA: Characterizing and Recovering Information Loss in Text Simplification [60.10193972862099]
  This work proposes a framework to characterize and recover simplification-induced information loss in form of question-and-answer pairs. QA pairs are designed to help readers deepen their knowledge of a text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-29T19:00:01Z)
• DIVKNOWQA: Assessing the Reasoning Ability of LLMs via Open-Domain Question Answering over Knowledge Base and Text [73.68051228972024]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited impressive generation capabilities, but they suffer from hallucinations when relying on their internal knowledge. Retrieval-augmented LLMs have emerged as a potential solution to ground LLMs in external knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-31T04:37:57Z)
• Demonstrations Are All You Need: Advancing Offensive Content Paraphrasing using In-Context Learning [10.897468059705238]
  Supervised paraphrasers rely heavily on large quantities of labelled data to help preserve meaning and intent. In this paper we aim to assist practitioners in developing usable paraphrasers by exploring In-Context Learning (ICL) with large language models (LLMs) Our study focuses on key factors such as - number and order of demonstrations, exclusion of prompt instruction, and reduction in measured toxicity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-16T16:18:55Z)
• Sentiment Analysis in the Era of Large Language Models: A Reality Check [69.97942065617664]
  This paper investigates the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in performing various sentiment analysis tasks. We evaluate performance across 13 tasks on 26 datasets and compare the results against small language models (SLMs) trained on domain-specific datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T10:45:25Z)

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.