Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as proxy students in the development of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITSs) and in piloting test questions. However, to what extent these proxy students accurately emulate the behavior and characteristics of real students remains an open question. To investigate this, we collected a dataset of 489 items from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), covering mathematics and reading comprehension in grades 4, 8, and 12. We then apply an Item Response Theory (IRT) model to position 11 diverse and state-of-the-art LLMs on the same ability scale as real student populations. Our findings reveal that, without guidance, strong general-purpose models consistently outperform the average student at every grade, while weaker or domain-mismatched models may align incidentally. Using grade-enforcement prompts changes models’ performance, but whether they align with the average grade-level student remains highly model- and prompt-specific: no evaluated model–prompt pair fits the bill across subjects and grades, underscoring the need for new training and evaluation strategies. We conclude by providing guidelines for the selection of viable proxies based on our findings. All related code and data have been made available (https://github.com/kvadityasrivatsa/IRT-for-LLMs-as-Students).

This shared task has aimed to assess pedagogical abilities of AI tutors powered by large language models (LLMs), focusing on evaluating the quality of tutor responses aimed at student’s mistake remediation within educational dialogues. The task consisted of five tracks designed to automatically evaluate the AI tutor’s performance across key dimensions of mistake identification, precise location of the mistake, providing guidance, and feedback actionability, grounded in learning science principles that define good and effective tutor responses, as well as the track focusing on detection of the tutor identity. The task attracted over 50 international teams across all tracks. The submitted models were evaluated against gold-standard human annotations, and the results, while promising, show that there is still significant room for improvement in this domain: the best results for the four pedagogical ability assessment tracks range between macro F1 scores of 58.34 (for providing guidance) and 71.81 (for mistake identification) on three-class problems, with the best F1 score in the tutor identification track reaching 96.98 on a 9-class task. In this paper, we overview the main findings of the shared task, discuss the approaches taken by the teams, and analyze their performance. All resources associated with this task are made publicly available to support futureresearch in this critical domain (https://github.com/kaushal0494/UnifyingAITutorEvaluation/tree/main/BEA_Shared_Task_2025_Datasets).

In this paper, we investigate whether current state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) are effective as AI tutors and whether they demonstrate pedagogical abilities necessary for good AI tutoring in educational dialogues. Previous efforts towards evaluation have beenlimited to subjective protocols and benchmarks. To bridge this gap, we propose a unified evaluation taxonomy with eight pedagogical dimensions based on key learning sciences principles, which is designed to assess the pedagogical value of LLM-powered AI tutor responses grounded in student mistakes or confusions in the mathematical domain. We release MRBench – a new evaluation benchmark containing 192 conversations and 1,596 responses from seven state-of-the-art LLM-based and human tutors, providing gold annotations for eight pedagogical dimensions. We assess reliability of the popular Prometheus2 and Llama-3.1-8B LLMs as evaluators and analyze each tutor’s pedagogical abilities, highlighting which LLMs are good tutors and which ones are more suitable as question-answering systems. We believe that the presented taxonomy, benchmark, and human-annotated labels will streamline the evaluation process and help track the progress in AI tutors’ development.

This paper investigates the question of what makes math word problems (MWPs) in English challenging for large language models (LLMs). We conduct an in-depth analysis of the key linguistic and mathematical characteristics of MWPs. In addition, we train feature-based classifiers to better understand the impact of each feature on the overall difficulty of MWPs for prominent LLMs and investigate whether this helps predict how well LLMs fare against specific categories of MWPs.

With the rapid development of LLMs, it is natural to ask how to harness their capabilities efficiently. In this paper, we explore whether it is feasible to direct each input query to a single most suitable LLM. To this end, we propose LLM routing for challenging reasoning tasks. Our extensive experiments suggest that such routing shows promise but is not feasible in all scenarios, so more robust approaches should be investigated to fill this gap.

Hateful and offensive content on social media platforms can have negative effects on users and can make online communities more hostile towards certain people and hamper equality, diversity and inclusion. In this paper, we describe our approach to classify homophobia and transphobia in social media comments. We used an ensemble of transformer-based models to build our classifier. Our model ranked 2nd for English, 8th for Tamil and 10th for Tamil-English.

Over the past few years, there has been a growing concern around toxic positivity on social media which is a phenomenon where positivity is used to minimize one’s emotional experience. In this paper, we create a dataset for toxic positivity classification from Twitter and an inspirational quote website. We then perform benchmarking experiments using various text classification models and show the suitability of these models for the task. We achieved a macro F1 score of 0.71 and a weighted F1 score of 0.85 by using an ensemble model. To the best of our knowledge, our dataset is the first such dataset created.