Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2507.12674

ParaStudent: Closing the Sim2Real Gap in User Simulators for AI Tutor Evaluation

Rose Niousha·Mihran Miroyan·Abigail O'Neill·Joseph E. Gonzalez·Gireeja Ranade·John DeNero·Narges Norouzi
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Evaluating Artificial Intelligence (AI) tutor feedback before deployment requires anticipating student engagement, typically assessed through real interaction data. We introduce ParaStudent, a fine-tuning framework for simulating novice programming revisions to support AI tutor evaluation. Compared with prompted baselines, ParaStudent's revisions more closely match real student code distributions across functional, stylistic, and semantic metrics. Our best variant achieves AUCs of 0.80 for both feedback relevance and successful uptake when distinguishing streams with real engagement above versus at or below the median, while prompted baselines remain near chance on successful uptake. These findings demonstrate the promise of simulated engagement for pre-deployment feedback triage.

Explore related subjects

cs.CYcs.AIcs.SE

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Rose Niousha, Mihran Miroyan, Abigail O'Neill, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Gireeja Ranade, John DeNero, Narges Norouzi. 2026-09-01. ParaStudent: Closing the Sim2Real Gap in User Simulators for AI Tutor Evaluation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.12674

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

cs.AI subjectcs.CY subjectcs.SE subject

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

FlavourBench: Executable Culinary Reward Maps for Language Model Evaluation and Post-Training

We introduce FlavorBench: a benchmark for Compiling Dense Deterministic Answer Maps from a Versioned Culinary Embeddings Model. We test 27 frontier large language model endpoints on 534 substitution, pairing and constraining tasks for tasks that request a 3-ingredient portfolio from 8 candidates and score all 56 resulting portfolios. We conducted multiplicity-controlled paired tests on 101 of 351 model contrasts for this task-set. The largest point estimate on this task-set was achieved by Grok 4.6 at 65.1. The same rankings for this task-set were also achieved on several independently-compiled panels (using a variety of familiar metrics, task filters, etc.) and 3 public Epicure checkpoints. We present a 3-seed post-training study where LoRA SFT of a Qwen3-0.6B checkpoint on 270 optimal answers for Epicure to score on this task-set resulted in a 13.3 point gain on 84 anchor-disjoint maps (compared to format and label-matched control; 95% CI: 6.52, 20.29; p = 0.000170).

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Building a research-software catalog with a coding agent: from hackathon prototype to public deployment

Generative AI and coding agents can accelerate research software development, but they also increase the need for efficient software discovery and maintenance. We developed a repository catalog during a three-day hackathon and subsequently examined the engineering required to make it suitable for public deployment, including adversarial review, data-quality checks, browser-level validation, and publication safeguards. We then explored whether the lessons learned from this prototype could be transferred to a much larger, human-curated portal, through a retrieval agent under development for MateriApps that combines curated portal metadata, external documentation, vector search, and local language-model generation. Implementation with coding agents was rapid, but achieving reliable operation required substantial additional engineering: the most consequential problems were not crashes but silent failures that produced plausible yet incomplete or incorrect outputs, arising from incomplete data acquisition, misleading assessments, and retrieval or preprocessing failures. These observations suggest that AI-assisted software portals require explicit validation, monitoring, and repeated review, and that curated metadata and maintained documentation remain essential. The MateriApps work is exploratory and remains under active development, so the observations reported for it are preliminary; a comparable combination of curated metadata, automatically collected documentation, and retrieval-based assistance may nevertheless be useful for extending other research-software portals.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

One Capability or Many? Testing the Economic Validity of Frontier AI Evaluation

Frontier-model leaderboards now rank systems based on economic benchmarks, tests of how well models carry out professional tasks from software engineering to banking workflows, and those rankings inform what organisations buy, what regulators scrutinise, and expectations of how work will change. Whether such benchmarks measure a capability distinct from general test-taking, or re-express the one axis along which every benchmark rises as models improve, is a question of construct validity that has not yet been studied. We test it on a hash-pinned leaderboard snapshot of 421 model configurations across twelve benchmarks, four of them economic, treating benchmarks as items and models as respondents in a latent-variable model with four hypotheses and their thresholds fixed before analysis. A single factor explains 74.5% of common variance and tracks model release date (R^2 = 0.505), so the leading axis of capability is substantially a time trend; where prior work controls for scale, compute adds little once date is removed. Removing the date trend lowers that share by 14.9 points, and by 24.1 with one row per base model. Under the dimensionality rule fixed in advance the economic benchmarks form no distinct factor, yet a leave-one-benchmark-out test with factors re-estimated inside every fold shows that a multi-factor representation predicts held-out economic scores better than a single general index (pooled Delta-MSE 0.037, 95% bootstrap interval [0.019, 0.055]). Economic benchmarks therefore add incremental predictive information to a largely date-driven general factor, and the evidence does not support treating them as a distinct latent capability. Leaderboards remain a sound guide to overall progress, but most of the gap between models released months apart is calendar, so a small gap between contemporaneous models should be date-adjusted before being read as a capability difference.

cs.LG↗