AI Ed Researcher

Authors: Yaning Pan, Qianqian Xie, Guohui Zhang, Zekun Wang, Yongqian Wen, Yuanxing Zhang, Haoxuan Hu, Zhiyu Pan, Yibing Huang, Zhidong Gan, Yonghong Lin, An Ping, Shihao Li, Yanghai Wang, Tianhao Peng, Jiaheng Liu

Abstract: The recent development of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) has significantly advanced AI’s ability to understand visual modalities. However, existing evaluation benchmarks remain limited to single-turn question answering, overlooking the complexity of multi-turn dialogues in real-world scenarios. To bridge this gap, we introduce MT-Video-Bench, a holistic video understanding benchmark for evaluating MLLMs in multi-turn dialogues. Specifically, our MT-Video-Bench mainly assesses 6 core competencies that focus on perceptivity and interactivity, encompassing 1,000 meticulously curated multi-turn dialogues from diverse domains. These capabilities are rigorously aligned with real-world applications, such as interactive sports analysis and multi-turn video-based intelligent tutoring. With MT-Video-Bench, we extensively evaluate various state-of-the-art open-source and closed-source MLLMs, revealing their significant performance discrepancies and limitations in handling multi-turn video dialogues. The benchmark will be publicly available to foster future research.

Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.17722

Authors: Yaning Pan, Qianqian Xie, Guohui Zhang, Zekun Wang, Yongqian Wen, Yuanxing Zhang, Haoxuan Hu, Zhiyu Pan, Yibing Huang, Zhidong Gan, Yonghong Lin, An Ping, Shihao Li, Yanghai Wang, Tianhao Peng, Jiaheng Liu

Abstract: The recent development of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) has significantly advanced AI’s ability to understand visual modalities. However, existing evaluation benchmarks remain limited to single-turn question answering, overlooking the complexity of multi-turn dialogues in real-world scenarios. To bridge this gap, we introduce MT-Video-Bench, a holistic video understanding benchmark for evaluating MLLMs in multi-turn dialogues. Specifically, our MT-Video-Bench mainly assesses 6 core competencies that focus on perceptivity and interactivity, encompassing 1,000 meticulously curated multi-turn dialogues from diverse domains. These capabilities are rigorously aligned with real-world applications, such as interactive sports analysis and multi-turn video-based intelligent tutoring. With MT-Video-Bench, we extensively evaluate various state-of-the-art open-source and closed-source MLLMs, revealing their significant performance discrepancies and limitations in handling multi-turn video dialogues. The benchmark will be publicly available to foster future research.

Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.17722

Authors: Seongyeub Chu, Jongwoo Kim, Munyong Yi

Abstract: Going beyond the prediction of numerical scores, recent research in automated essay scoring has increasingly emphasized the generation of high-quality feedback that provides justification and actionable guidance. To mitigate the high cost of expert annotation, prior work has commonly relied on LLM-generated feedback to train essay assessment models. However, such feedback is often incorporated without explicit quality validation, resulting in the propagation of noise in downstream applications. To address this limitation, we propose FeedEval, an LLM-based framework for evaluating LLM-generated essay feedback along three pedagogically grounded dimensions: specificity, helpfulness, and validity. FeedEval employs dimension-specialized LLM evaluators trained on datasets curated in this study to assess multiple feedback candidates and select high-quality feedback for downstream use. Experiments on the ASAP++ benchmark show that FeedEval closely aligns with human expert judgments and that essay scoring models trained with FeedEval-filtered high-quality feedback achieve superior scoring performance. Furthermore, revision experiments using small LLMs show that the high-quality feedback identified by FeedEval leads to more effective essay revisions. We will release our code and curated datasets upon accepted.

Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.04574

Authors: Nadav Kunievsky, Pedro Pertusi

Abstract: Students from different socioeconomic backgrounds exhibit persistent gaps in test scores, gaps that can translate into unequal educational and labor-market outcomes later in life. In many assessments, performance reflects not only what students know, but also how effectively they can communicate that knowledge. This distinction is especially salient in writing assessments, where scores jointly reward the substance of students’ ideas and the way those ideas are expressed. As a result, observed score gaps may conflate differences in underlying content with differences in expressive skill. A central question, therefore, is how much of the socioeconomic-status (SES) gap in scores is driven by differences in what students say versus how they say it. We study this question using a large corpus of persuasive essays written by U.S. middle- and high-school students. We introduce a new measurement strategy that separates content from style by leveraging large language models to generate multiple stylistic variants of each essay. These rewrites preserve the underlying arguments while systematically altering surface expression, creating a “generated panel” that introduces controlled within-essay variation in style. This approach allows us to decompose SES gaps in writing scores into contributions from content and style. We find an SES gap of 0.67 points on a 1-6 scale. Approximately 69% of the gap is attributable to differences in essay content quality, Style differences account for 26% of the gap, and differences in evaluation standards across SES groups account for the remaining 5%. These patterns seems stable across demographic subgroups and writing tasks. More broadly, our approach shows how large language models can be used to generate controlled variation in observational data, enabling researchers to isolate and quantify the contributions of otherwise entangled factors.

Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.03469

Authors: Junaid Qadir, Muhammad Adil Attique, Saleha Shoaib, Syed Ibrahim Ghaznavi

Abstract: Engineering education faces a double disruption: traditional apprenticeship models that cultivated judgment and tacit skill are eroding, just as generative AI emerges as an informal coaching partner. This convergence rekindles long-standing questions in the philosophy of AI and cognition about the limits of computation, the nature of embodied rationality, and the distinction between information processing and wisdom. Building on this rich intellectual tradition, this paper examines whether AI chatbots can provide coaching that fosters mastery rather than merely delivering information. We synthesize critical perspectives from decades of scholarship on expertise, tacit knowledge, and human-machine interaction, situating them within the context of contemporary AI-driven education. Empirically, we report findings from a mixed-methods study (N = 75 students, N = 7 faculty) exploring the use of a coaching chatbot in engineering education. Results reveal a consistent boundary: participants accept AI for technical problem solving (convergent tasks; M = 3.84 on a 1-5 Likert scale) but remain skeptical of its capacity for moral, emotional, and contextual judgment (divergent tasks). Faculty express stronger concerns over risk (M = 4.71 vs. M = 4.14, p = 0.003), and privacy emerges as a key requirement, with 64-71 percent of participants demanding strict confidentiality. Our findings suggest that while generative AI can democratize access to cognitive and procedural support, it cannot replicate the embodied, value-laden dimensions of human mentorship. We propose a multiplex coaching framework that integrates human wisdom within expert-in-the-loop models, preserving the depth of apprenticeship while leveraging AI scalability to enrich the next generation of engineering education.

Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.03693