analiza aiqbench
This research investigates the limitations of Large Language Models in simulating subjective learner evaluations within educational contexts, specifically analyzing feedback on high-school biology questions. The study finds that while providing learner profiles improves individual-level calibration, LLMs struggle to achieve consistent group-level agreement with real human judgments. These findings underscore the current gap between model-generated preferences and actual student perspectives, offering critical insights for developers of adaptive learning systems.
How Well Can LLMs Simulate Real Learner Evaluations of Educational Feedback?
arXiv:2609.35376v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While recent studies have explored human behavior and preference simulation using large language models (LLMs), it remains unclear how well LLMs can simulate subjective evaluations from real learners in educational settings. We investigate this question using real learner evaluation data on feedback for high-school biology questions at both the group and individual levels. We compare performance with and without learner-specific information, such as personality traits and evaluation examples, across six models. Our results show that LLMs still have a limited ability to simulate learner evaluations. Providing learner profiles and examples improves score calibration and individual-level simulation, but more often fails to improve group-level consistency. These findings highlight the need to investigate which learner information and adaptation strategies are effective for learner preference simulation.
Title:How Well Can LLMs Simulate Real Learner Evaluations of Educational Feedback?
Abstract:While recent studies have explored human behavior and preference simulation using large language models (LLMs), it remains unclear how well LLMs can simulate subjective evaluations from real learners in educational settings. We investigate this question using real learner evaluation data on feedback for high-school biology questions at both the group and individual levels. We compare performance with and without learner-specific information, such as personality traits and evaluation examples, across six models. Our results show that LLMs still have a limited ability to simulate learner evaluations. Providing learner profiles and examples improves score calibration and individual-level simulation, but more often fails to improve group-level consistency. These findings highlight the need to investigate which learner information and adaptation strategies are effective for learner preference simulation.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2609.35376 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.35376v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.35376 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 229 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Runway’s WorldPrompt and the Engineering of Real-Time Worlds
Latent Space · 25 sept. 2026

The user in the LLM might be a moral patient too (a strange implication of the PSM and simulators)
LessWrong · 15 oct. 2026

The future of practice: Enabling teachers to create learning interactives with generative UI
Google Research · 17 sept. 2026

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · 5 oct. 2026