In recent years, natural language processing (NLP) has become integral to educational data mining, particularly in the analysis of student-generated language products. For research and assessment purposes, so-called embedding models are typically employed to generate numeric representations of text that capture its semantic content for use in subsequent quantitative analyses. Y et when it comes to science-related language, symbolic expressions such as equations and formulas introduce challenges that current embedding models struggle to address. Existing research studies and practical applications often either overlook these challenges or remove symbolic expressions altogether, potentially leading to biased research findings and diminished performance of practical applications. This study therefore explores how contemporary embedding models differ in their capability to process and interpret science-related symbolic expressions. To this end, various embedding models are evaluated using physics-specific symbolic expressions drawn from authentic student responses, with performance assessed via two approaches: 1) similarity-based analyses and 2) integration into a machine learning pipeline. Our findings reveal significant differences in model performance, with OpenAI's GPT-text-embedding-3-large outperforming all other examined models, though its advantage over other models was moderate rather than decisive. Overall, this study underscores the importance for educational data mining researchers and practitioners of carefully selecting NLP embedding models when working with science-related language products that include symbolic expressions. The code and (partial) data are available at https: //doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6XQVG.

A new strategy for fair supervised machine learning is proposed. The main advantages of the proposed strategy as compared to others in the literature are as follows. (a) We introduce a new smooth nonconvex surrogate to approximate the Heaviside functions involved in discontinuous unfairness measures. The surrogate is based on smoothing methods from the optimization literature, and is new for the fair supervised learning literature. The surrogate is a tight approximation which ensures the trained prediction models are fair, as opposed to other (e.g., convex) surrogates that can fail to lead to a fair prediction model in practice. (b) Rather than rely on regularizers (that lead to optimization problems that are difficult to solve) and corresponding regularization parameters (that can be expensive to tune), we propose a strategy that employs hard constraints so that specific tolerances for unfairness can be enforced without the complications associated with the use of regularization. (c) Our proposed strategy readily allows for constraints on multiple (potentially conflicting) unfairness measures at the same time. Multiple measures can be considered with a regularization approach, but at the cost of having even more difficult optimization problems to solve and further expense for tuning. By contrast, through hard constraints, our strategy leads to optimization models that can be solved tractably with minimal tuning.

Continuous time systems are often modeled using discrete time dynamics but this requires a small simulation step to maintain accuracy. In turn, this requires a large planning horizon which leads to computationally demanding planning problems and reduced performance. Previous work in model-free reinforcement learning has partially addressed this issue using action repeats where a policy is learned to determine a discrete action duration. Instead we propose to control the continuous decision timescale directly by using temporally-extended actions and letting the planner treat the duration of the action as an additional optimization variable along with the standard action variables. This additional structure has multiple advantages. It speeds up simulation time of trajectories and, importantly, it allows for deep horizon search in terms of primitive actions while using a shallow search depth in the planner. In addition, in the model-based reinforcement learning (MBRL) setting, it reduces compounding errors from model learning and improves training time for models. We show that this idea is effective and that the range for action durations can be automatically selected using a multi-armed bandit formulation and integrated into the MBRL framework. An extensive experimental evaluation both in planning and in MBRL, shows that our approach yields faster planning, better solutions, and that it enables solutions to problems that are not solved in the standard formulation.

Despite their strengths, large language models (LLMs) often fail to communicate their confidence accurately, making it difficult to assess when they might be wrong and limiting their reliability. In this work, we demonstrate that reasoning models that engage in extended chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning exhibit superior performance not only in problem-solving but also in accurately expressing their confidence. Specifically, we benchmark six reasoning models across six datasets and find that they achieve strictly better confidence calibration than their non-reasoning counterparts in 33 out of the 36 settings. Our detailed analysis reveals that these gains in calibration stem from the slow thinking behaviors of reasoning models (e.g., exploring alternative approaches and backtracking) which enable them to adjust their confidence dynamically throughout their CoT, making it progressively more accurate. In particular, we find that reasoning models become increasingly better calibrated as their CoT unfolds, a trend not observed in non-reasoning models. Moreover, removing slow thinking behaviors from the CoT leads to a significant drop in calibration. Lastly, we show that non-reasoning models also demonstrate enhanced calibration when simply guided to slow think via in-context learning, fully isolating slow thinking as the source of the calibration gains.

The capability to precisely adhere to instructions is a cornerstone for Large Language Models (LLMs) to function as dependable agents in real-world scenarios. However, confronted with complex prompts, LLMs frequently encounter difficulties in fulfilling all specified requirements within a single response. Drawing inspiration from recent advancements in Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting and self-correction methodologies, we introduce Meeseeks (The name is inspired by Mr. Meeseeks from "Rick and Morty," a character renowned for efficiently accomplishing assigned tasks. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Meeseeks), a fully automated iterative instruction-following benchmark equipped with an integrated feedback mechanism. Meeseeks identifies erroneous components in model responses and provides corresponding feedback accurately, thereby iteratively guiding the model toward self-correction. The dataset contains over 700 curated instances annotated by 32 distinct capability tags in Chinese and English. Extensive experimental results reveal that different state-of-the-art commercial and open-source LLMs exhibit vastly disparate performance, and even after 20 turns of iterative feedback-driven self-correction, nearly all models demonstrate suboptimal performance. We conducted comprehensive analysis from both macro and instance levels, uncovering numerous common issues prevalent in current state-of-the-art models, as well as several counterintuitive phenomena. We've open-sourced our work on https://github.com/ADoublLEN/Meeseeks.

Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards has emerged as a powerful technique for enhancing the complex reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, these methods are fundamentally constrained by the ''learning cliff'' phenomenon: when faced with problems far beyond their current capabilities, models consistently fail, yielding a persistent zero-reward signal. In policy optimization algorithms like GRPO, this collapses the advantage calculation to zero, rendering these difficult problems invisible to the learning gradient and stalling progress. To overcome this, we introduce Scaf-GRPO (Scaffolded Group Relative Policy Optimization), a progressive training framework that strategically provides minimal guidance only when a model's independent learning has plateaued. The framework first diagnoses learning stagnation and then intervenes by injecting tiered in-prompt hints, ranging from abstract concepts to concrete steps, enabling the model to construct a valid solution by itself. Extensive experiments on challenging mathematics benchmarks demonstrate Scaf-GRPO's effectiveness, boosting the pass@1 score of the Qwen2.5-Math-7B model on the AIME24 benchmark by a relative 44.3% over a vanilla GRPO baseline. This result demonstrates our framework provides a robust and effective methodology for unlocking a model's ability to solve problems previously beyond its reach, a critical step towards extending the frontier of autonomous reasoning in LLM.

Public and nonprofit organizations often hesitate to adopt AI tools because most models are opaque even though standard approaches typically analyze aggregate patterns rather than offering actionable, case-level guidance. This study tests a practitioner-in-the-loop workflow that pairs transparent decision-tree models with large language models (LLMs) to improve predictive accuracy, interpretability, and the generation of practical insights. Using data from an ongoing college-success program, we build interpretable decision trees to surface key predictors. We then provide each tree's structure to an LLM, enabling it to reproduce case-level predictions grounded in the transparent models. Practitioners participate throughout feature engineering, model design, explanation review, and usability assessment, ensuring that field expertise informs the analysis at every stage. Results show that integrating transparent models, LLMs, and practitioner input yields accurate, trustworthy, and actionable case-level evaluations, offering a viable pathway for responsible AI adoption in the public and nonprofit sectors.

Human communication is motivated: people speak, write, and create content with a particular communicative intent in mind. As a result, information that large language models (LLMs) and AI agents process is inherently framed by humans' intentions and incentives. People are adept at navigating such nuanced information: we routinely identify benevolent or self-serving motives in order to decide what statements to trust. For LLMs to be effective in the real world, they too must critically evaluate content by factoring in the motivations of the source -- for instance, weighing the credibility of claims made in a sales pitch. In this paper, we undertake a comprehensive study of whether LLMs have this capacity for motivational vigilance. We first employ controlled experiments from cognitive science to verify that LLMs' behavior is consistent with rational models of learning from motivated testimony, and find they successfully discount information from biased sources in a human-like manner. We then extend our evaluation to sponsored online adverts, a more naturalistic reflection of LLM agents' information ecosystems. In these settings, we find that LLMs' inferences do not track the rational models' predictions nearly as closely -- partly due to additional information that distracts them from vigilance-relevant considerations. However, a simple steering intervention that boosts the salience of intentions and incentives substantially increases the correspondence between LLMs and the rational model. These results suggest that LLMs possess a basic sensitivity to the motivations of others, but generalizing to novel real-world settings will require further improvements to these models.

Feedback is one of the most powerful influences on student learning, with extensive research examining how best to implement it in educational settings. Increasingly, feedback is being generated by artificial intelligence (AI), offering scalable and adaptive responses. Two widely studied approaches are directive feedback, which gives explicit explanations and reduces cognitive load to speed up learning, and metacognitive feedback which prompts learners to reflect, track their progress, and develop self-regulated learning (SRL) skills. While both approaches have clear theoretical advantages, their comparative effects on engagement, confidence, and quality of work remain underexplored. This study presents a semester-long randomised controlled trial with 329 students in an introductory design and programming course using an adaptive educational platform. Participants were assigned to receive directive, metacognitive, or hybrid AI-generated feedback that blended elements of both directive and metacognitive feedback. Results showed that revision behaviour differed across feedback conditions, with Hybrid prompting the most revisions compared to Directive and Metacognitive. Confidence ratings were uniformly high, and resource quality outcomes were comparable across conditions. These findings highlight the promise of AI in delivering feedback that balances clarity with reflection. Hybrid approaches, in particular, show potential to combine actionable guidance for immediate improvement with opportunities for self-reflection and metacognitive growth.

We propose a rubric-guided, pseudo-labeled, and prompt-driven zero-shot video summarization framework that bridges large language models with structured semantic reasoning. A small subset of human annotations is converted into high-confidence pseudo labels and organized into dataset-adaptive rubrics defining clear evaluation dimensions such as thematic relevance, action detail, and narrative progression. During inference, boundary scenes, including the opening and closing segments, are scored independently based on their own descriptions, while intermediate scenes incorporate concise summaries of adjacent segments to assess narrative continuity and redundancy. This design enables the language model to balance local salience with global coherence without any parameter tuning. Across three benchmarks, the proposed method achieves stable and competitive results, with F1 scores of 57.58 on SumMe, 63.05 on TVSum, and 53.79 on QFVS, surpassing zero-shot baselines by +0.85, +0.84, and +0.37, respectively. These outcomes demonstrate that rubric-guided pseudo labeling combined with contextual prompting effectively stabilizes LLM-based scoring and establishes a general, interpretable, and training-free paradigm for both generic and query-focused video summarization.