Yunze Xiao

Ming Li, Han Chen, Yunze Xiao et al.

Accurate estimation of item (question or task) difficulty is critical for educational assessment but suffers from the cold start problem. While Large Language Models demonstrate superhuman problem-solving capabilities, it remains an open question whether they can perceive the cognitive struggles of human learners. In this work, we present a large-scale empirical analysis of Human-AI Difficulty Alignment for over 20 models across diverse domains such as medical knowledge and mathematical reasoning. Our findings reveal a systematic misalignment where scaling up model size is not reliably helpful; instead of aligning with humans, models converge toward a shared machine consensus. We observe that high performance often impedes accurate difficulty estimation, as models struggle to simulate the capability limitations of students even when being explicitly prompted to adopt specific proficiency levels. Furthermore, we identify a critical lack of introspection, as models fail to predict their own limitations. These results suggest that general problem-solving capability does not imply an understanding of human cognitive struggles, highlighting the challenge of using current models for automated difficulty prediction.

Zhihao Yuan, Yunze Xiao, Ming Li et al.

This paper presents a conceptual and methodological framework for large language model (LLM) based student simulation in educational settings. The authors identify a core failure mode, termed the "competence paradox" in which broadly capable LLMs are asked to emulate partially knowledgeable learners, leading to unrealistic error patterns and learning dynamics. To address this, the paper reframes student simulation as a constrained generation problem governed by an explicit Epistemic State Specification (ESS), which defines what a simulated learner can access, how errors are structured, and how learner state evolves over time. The work further introduces a Goal-by-Environment framework to situate simulated student systems according to behavioral objectives and deployment contexts. Rather than proposing a new system or benchmark, the paper synthesizes prior literature, formalizes key design dimensions, and articulates open challenges related to validity, evaluation, and ethical risks. Overall, the paper argues for epistemic fidelity over surface realism as a prerequisite for using LLM-based simulated students as reliable scientific and pedagogical instruments.