Andrew Lan

Nisarg Parikh, Ananya Sai, Pannaga Shivaswamy et al.

Large language models (LLMs) often make accurate next token predictions but their confidence in these predictions can be poorly calibrated: high-confidence predictions are frequently wrong, and low-confidence predictions may be correct. This miscalibration is exacerbated by preference-based alignment methods breaking the link between predictive probability and correctness. We introduce a Calibration Aware Token-level Training Objective (CATTO), a calibration-aware objective that aligns predicted confidence with empirical prediction correctness, which can be combined with the original preference optimization objectives. Empirically, CATTO reduces Expected Calibration Error (ECE) by 2.22%-7.61% in-distribution and 1.46%-10.44% out-of-distribution compared to direct preference optimization (DPO), and by 0.22%-1.24% in-distribution and 1.23%-5.07% out-of-distribution compared to the strongest DPO baseline. This improvement in confidence does not come at a cost of losing task accuracy, where CATTO maintains or slightly improves multiple-choice question-answering accuracy on five datasets. We also introduce Confidence@k, a test-time scaling mechanism leveraging calibrated token probabilities for Bayes-optimal selection of output tokens.

Jaewook Lee, Alexander Scarlatos, Simon Woodhead et al.

With the emergence of large language models (LLMs) as a powerful class of generative artificial intelligence (AI), their use in tutoring has become increasingly prominent. Prior works on LLM-based tutoring typically learn a single tutor policy and do not capture the diversity of tutoring styles. In real-world tutor-student interactions, pedagogical intent is realized through adaptive instructional strategies, with tutors varying the level of scaffolding, instructional directiveness, feedback, and affective support in response to learners' needs. These differences can all impact dialogue dynamics and student engagement. In this paper, we explore how tutor personas embedded in human tutor-student dialogues can be used to guide LLM behavior without relying on explicitly prompted instructions. We train a steering vector using preference optimization: an activation-space direction that guides model responses toward specific tutor personas. We find that this steering vector captures tutor-specific variation across dialogue contexts, improving semantic alignment with ground-truth tutor utterances and increasing preference-based evaluations, while largely preserving lexical similarity. Analysis of the learned scaling coefficients further reveals interpretable structure across tutors, corresponding to consistent differences in tutoring behavior. These results demonstrate that activation steering offers an effective and interpretable way for controlling tutor-specific variation in LLMs using signals derived directly from human dialogue data.

Alexander Scarlatos, Jaewook Lee, Simon Woodhead et al.

Advances in large language models (LLMs) enable many new innovations in education. However, evaluating the effectiveness of new technology requires real students, which is time-consuming and hard to scale up. Therefore, many recent works on LLM-powered tutoring solutions have used simulated students for both training and evaluation, often via simple prompting. Surprisingly, little work has been done to ensure or even measure the quality of simulated students. In this work, we formally define the student simulation task, propose a set of evaluation metrics that span linguistic, behavioral, and cognitive aspects, and benchmark a wide range of student simulation methods on these metrics. We experiment on a real-world math tutoring dialogue dataset, where both automated and human evaluation results show that prompting strategies for student simulation perform poorly; supervised fine-tuning and preference optimization yield much better but still limited performance, motivating future work on this challenging task.