As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly embedded in our daily lives, evaluating their quality and reliability across diverse contexts has become essential. While comprehensive benchmarks exist for assessing LLM performance in English, there remains a significant gap in evaluation resources for other languages. Moreover, because most LLMs are trained primarily on data rooted in European and American cultures, they often lack familiarity with non-Western cultural contexts. To address this limitation, our study focuses on the Persian language and Iranian culture. We introduce 19 new evaluation datasets specifically designed to assess LLMs on topics such as Iranian law, Persian grammar, Persian idioms, and university entrance exams. Using these datasets, we benchmarked 41 prominent LLMs, aiming to bridge the existing cultural and linguistic evaluation gap in the field.

Artificial intelligence - driven adaptive learning systems are reshaping education through data - driven adaptation of learning experiences. Yet many of these systems lack transparency, offering limited insight into how decisions are made. Most explainable AI (XAI) techniques focus on technical outputs but neglect user roles and comprehension. This paper proposes a hybrid framework that integrates traditional XAI techniques with generative AI models and u ser personalisation to generate multimodal, personalised explanations tailored to user needs. We redefine explainability as a dynamic communication process tailored to user roles and learning goals. We outline the framework ' s design, key XAI limitations in education, and research directions on accuracy, fairness, and personalisation. Our aim is to move towards explainable AI that enhances transparency while supporting user - centred experiences.

Code retrieval aims to provide users with desired code snippets based on users' natural language queries. With the development of deep learning technologies, adopting pre-trained models for this task has become mainstream. Considering the retrieval efficiency, most of the previous approaches adopt a dual-encoder for this task, which encodes the description and code snippet into representation vectors, respectively. However, the model structure of the dual-encoder tends to limit the model's performance, since it lacks the interaction between the code snippet and description at the bottom layer of the model during training. To improve the model's effectiveness while preserving its efficiency, we propose a framework, which adopts Self-AdaPtive Model Distillation for Efficient CodE Retrieval, named SPENCER. SPENCER first adopts the dual-encoder to narrow the search space and then adopts the cross-encoder to improve accuracy. To improve the efficiency of SPENCER, we propose a novel model distillation technique, which can greatly reduce the inference time of the dual-encoder while maintaining the overall performance. We also propose a teaching assistant selection strategy for our model distillation, which can adaptively select the suitable teaching assistant models for different pre-trained models during the model distillation to ensure the model performance. Extensive experiments demonstrate that the combination of dual-encoder and cross-encoder improves overall performance compared to solely dual-encoder-based models for code retrieval. Besides, our model distillation technique retains over 98% of the overall performance while reducing the inference time of the dual-encoder by 70%.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable abilities in structured reasoning and symbolic tasks, with coding emerging as a particular area of strength. This success has sparked growing interest in applying LLMs to mathematics, both in informal problem-solving and formal theorem proving. However, progress in formal mathematics has proven to be significantly more difficult, despite surface-level similarities between programming and proof construction. This discrepancy raises important questions about how LLMs ``reason'', how they are supervised, and whether they internally track a notion of computational or deductive state. In this article, we address the state-of-the-art of the discipline, focusing on recent models and benchmarks, and explore three central issues at the intersection of machine learning and mathematical cognition: (i) the trade-offs between formal and informal mathematics as training domains; (ii) the deeper reasons why proof generation remains more brittle than code synthesis; (iii) and the question of whether LLMs represent, or merely mimic, a notion of evolving logical state. Our goal is not to draw hard boundaries, but to identify where the current limits lie, and how they might be extended.

Prompt tuning (PT), as an emerging resource-efficient fine-tuning paradigm, has showcased remarkable effectiveness in improving the task-specific transferability of vision-language models. This paper delves into a previously overlooked information asymmetry issue in PT, where the visual modality mostly conveys more context than the object-oriented textual modality. Correspondingly, coarsely aligning these two modalities could result in the biased attention, driving the model to merely focus on the context area. To address this, we propose DAPT, an effective PT framework based on an intuitive decouple-before-align concept. First, we propose to explicitly decouple the visual modality into the foreground and background representation via exploiting coarse-and-fine visual segmenting cues, and then both of these decoupled patterns are aligned with the original foreground texts and the hand-crafted background classes, thereby symmetrically strengthening the modal alignment. To further enhance the visual concentration, we propose a visual pull-push regularization tailored for the foreground-background patterns, directing the original visual representation towards unbiased attention on the region-of-interest object. We demonstrate the power of architecture-free DAPT through few-shot learning, base-to-novel generalization, and data-efficient learning, all of which yield superior performance across prevailing benchmarks. Our code will be released at https://github.com/Ferenas/DAPT.

Evaluating the performance of visual language models (VLMs) in graphic reasoning tasks has become an important research topic. However, VLMs still show obvious deficiencies in simulating human-level graphic reasoning capabilities, especially in complex graphic reasoning and abstract problem solving, which are less studied and existing studies only focus on simple graphics. To evaluate the performance of VLMs in complex graphic reasoning, we propose ReasonBench, the first evaluation benchmark focused on structured graphic reasoning tasks, which includes 1,613 questions from real-world intelligence tests. ReasonBench covers reasoning dimensions related to location, attribute, quantity, and multi-element tasks, providing a comprehensive evaluation of the performance of VLMs in spatial, relational, and abstract reasoning capabilities. We benchmark 11 mainstream VLMs (including closed-source and open-source models) and reveal significant limitations of current models. Based on these findings, we propose a dual optimization strategy: Diagrammatic Reasoning Chain (DiaCoT) enhances the interpretability of reasoning by decomposing layers, and ReasonTune enhances the task adaptability of model reasoning through training, all of which improves VLM performance by 33.5\%. All experimental data and code are in the repository: https://huggingface.co/datasets/cistine/ReasonBench.

We present an online tutoring system that learns to provide effective feedback to students after they answer questions incorrectly. Using data from one million students, the system learns which assistance action (e.g., one of multiple hints) to provide for each question to optimize student learning. Employing the multi-armed bandit (MAB) framework and offline policy evaluation, we assess 43,000 assistance actions, and identify trade-offs between assistance policies optimized for different student outcomes (e.g., response correctness, session completion). We design an algorithm that for each question decides on a suitable policy training objective to enhance students' immediate second attempt success and overall practice session performance. We evaluate the resulting MAB policies in 166,000 practice sessions, verifying significant improvements in student outcomes. While MAB policies optimize feedback for the overall student population, we further investigate whether contextual bandit (CB) policies can enhance outcomes by personalizing feedback based on individual student features (e.g., ability estimates, response times). Using causal inference, we examine (i) how effects of assistance actions vary across students and (ii) whether CB policies, which leverage such effect heterogeneity, outperform MAB policies. While our analysis reveals that some actions for some questions exhibit effect heterogeneity, effect sizes may often be too small for CB policies to provide significant improvements beyond what well-optimized MAB policies that deliver the same action to all students already achieve. We discuss insights gained from deploying data-driven systems at scale and implications for future refinements. Today, the teaching policies optimized by our system support thousands of students daily.

Humans can be notoriously imperfect evaluators. They are often biased, unreliable, and unfit to define "ground truth." Yet, given the surging need to produce large amounts of training data in educational applications using AI, traditional inter-rater reliability (IRR) metrics like Cohen's kappa remain central to validating labeled data. IRR remains a cornerstone of many machine learning pipelines for educational data. Take, for example, the classification of tutors' moves in dialogues or labeling open responses in machine-graded assessments. This position paper argues that overreliance on human IRR as a gatekeeper for annotation quality hampers progress in classifying data in ways that are valid and predictive in relation to improving learning. To address this issue, we highlight five examples of complementary evaluation methods, such as multi-label annotation schemes, expert-based approaches, and close-the-loop validity. We argue that these approaches are in a better position to produce training data and subsequent models that produce improved student learning and more actionable insights than IRR approaches alone. We also emphasize the importance of external validity, for example, by establishing a procedure of validating tutor moves and demonstrating that it works across many categories of tutor actions (e.g., providing hints). We call on the field to rethink annotation quality and ground truth--prioritizing validity and educational impact over consensus alone.

Distilling large neural networks into simple, human-readable symbolic formulas is a promising path toward trustworthy and interpretable AI. However, this process is often brittle, as the complex functions learned by standard networks are poor targets for symbolic discovery, resulting in low-fidelity student models. In this work, we propose a novel training paradigm to address this challenge. Instead of passively distilling a pre-trained network, we introduce a \textbf{Jacobian-based regularizer} that actively encourages the ``teacher'' network to learn functions that are not only accurate but also inherently smoother and more amenable to distillation. We demonstrate through extensive experiments on a suite of real-world regression benchmarks that our method is highly effective. By optimizing the regularization strength for each problem, we improve the $R^2$ score of the final distilled symbolic model by an average of \textbf{120\% (relative)} compared to the standard distillation pipeline, all while maintaining the teacher's predictive accuracy. Our work presents a practical and principled method for significantly improving the fidelity of interpretable models extracted from complex neural networks.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in natural language understanding and generation, but they exhibit problems with logical consistency in the output they generate. How can we harness LLMs' broad-coverage parametric knowledge in formal reasoning despite their inconsistency? We present a method for directly integrating an LLM into the interpretation function of the formal semantics for a paraconsistent logic. We provide experimental evidence for the feasibility of the method by evaluating the function using datasets created from several short-form factuality benchmarks. Unlike prior work, our method offers a theoretical framework for neurosymbolic reasoning that leverages an LLM's knowledge while preserving the underlying logic's soundness and completeness properties.