When executed well, project-based learning (PBL) engages students' intrinsic motivation, encourages students to learn far beyond a course's limited curriculum, and prepares students to think critically and maturely about the skills and tools at their disposal. However, educators experience mixed results when using PBL in their classrooms: some students thrive with minimal guidance and others flounder. Early evaluation of project proposals could help educators determine which students need more support, yet evaluating project proposals and student aptitude is time-consuming and difficult to scale. In this work, we design, implement, and conduct an initial user study ( n = 36) for a software system that collects project proposals and aptitude information to support educators in determining whether a student is ready to engage with PBL. We find that (1) users perceived the system as helpful for writing project proposals and identifying tools and technologies to learn more about, (2) educator ratings indicate that users with less technical experience in the project topic tend to write lower-quality project proposals, and (3) GPT-4o's ratings show agreement with educator ratings. While the prospect of using LLMs to rate the quality of students' project proposals is promising, its long-term effectiveness strongly hinges on future efforts at characterizing indicators that reliably predict students' success and motivation to learn.

Knowledge Components (KCs) linked to assessments enhance the measurement of student learning, enrich analytics, and facilitate adaptivity. However, generating and linking KCs to assessment items requires significant effort and domain-specific knowledge. To streamline this process for higher-education courses, we employed GPT-4 to generate KCs for multiple-choice questions (MCQs) in Chemistry and E-Learning. We analyzed discrepancies between the KCs generated by the Large Language Model (LLM) and those made by humans through evaluation from three domain experts in each subject area. This evaluation aimed to determine whether, in instances of non-matching KCs, evaluators showed a preference for the LLM-generated KCs over their human-created counterparts. We also developed an ontology induction algorithm to cluster questions that assess similar KCs based on their content. Our most effective LLM strategy accurately matched KCs for 56% of Chemistry and 35% of E-Learning MCQs, with even higher success when considering the top five KC suggestions. Human evaluators favored LLM-generated KCs, choosing them over human-assigned ones approximately two-thirds of the time, a preference that was statistically significant across both domains. Our clustering algorithm successfully grouped questions by their underlying KCs without needing explicit labels or contextual information. This research advances the automation of KC generation and classification for assessment items, alleviating the need for student data or predefined KC labels.

Conversational tutoring systems (CTSs) offer learning experiences through interactions based on natural language. They are recognized for promoting cognitive engagement and improving learning outcomes, especially in reasoning tasks. Nonetheless, the cost associated with authoring CTS content is a major obstacle to widespread adoption and to research on effective instructional design. In this paper, we discuss and evaluate a novel type of CTS that leverages recent advances in large language models (LLMs) in two ways: First, the system enables AI-assisted content authoring by inducing an easily editable tutoring script automatically from a lesson text. Second, the system automates the script orchestration in a learning-by-teaching format via two LLM-based agents (Ruffle&Riley) acting as a student and a professor. The system allows for free-form conversations that follow the ITS-typical inner and outer loop structure. We evaluate Ruffle&Riley's ability to support biology lessons in two between-subject online user studies (N = 200) comparing the system to simpler QA chatbots and reading activity. Analyzing system usage patterns, pre/post-test scores and user experience surveys, we find that Ruffle&Riley users report high levels of engagement, understanding and perceive the offered support as helpful. Even though Ruffle&Riley users require more time to complete the activity, we did not find significant differences in short-term learning gains over the reading activity. Our system architecture and user study provide various insights for designers of future CTSs. We further open-source our system to support ongoing research on effective instructional design of LLM-based learning technologies.

Remarkable performance of large language models (LLMs) in a variety of tasks brings forth many opportunities as well as challenges of utilizing them in production settings. Towards practical adoption of LLMs, multi-agent systems hold great promise to augment, integrate, and orchestrate LLMs in the larger context of enterprise platforms that use existing proprietary data and models to tackle complex real-world tasks. Despite the tremendous success of these systems, current approaches rely on narrow, single-focus objectives for optimization and evaluation, often overlooking potential constraints in real-world scenarios, including restricted budgets, resources and time. Furthermore, interpreting, analyzing, and debugging these systems requires different components to be evaluated in relation to one another. This demand is currently not feasible with existing methodologies. In this postion paper, we introduce the concept of reasoning capacity as a unifying criterion to enable integration of constraints during optimization and establish connections among different components within the system, which also enable a more holistic and comprehensive approach to evaluation. We present a formal definition of reasoning capacity and illustrate its utility in identifying limitations within each component of the system. We then argue how these limitations can be addressed with a self-reflective process wherein human-feedback is used to alleviate shortcomings in reasoning and enhance overall consistency of the system.

Open-world survival games pose significant challenges for AI algorithms due to their multi-tasking, deep exploration, and goal prioritization requirements. Despite reinforcement learning (RL) being popular for solving games, its high sample complexity limits its effectiveness in complex open-world games like Crafter or Minecraft. We propose a novel approach, SPRING, to read the game's original academic paper and use the knowledge learned to reason and play the game through a large language model (LLM). Prompted with the LaTeX source as game context and a description of the agent's current observation, our SPRING framework employs a directed acyclic graph (DAG) with game-related questions as nodes and dependencies as edges. We identify the optimal action to take in the environment by traversing the DAG and calculating LLM responses for each node in topological order, with the LLM's answer to final node directly translating to environment actions. In our experiments, we study the quality of in-context "reasoning" induced by different forms of prompts under the setting of the Crafter open-world environment. Our experiments suggest that LLMs, when prompted with consistent chain-of-thought, have great potential in completing sophisticated high-level trajectories. Quantitatively, SPRING with GPT-4 outperforms all state-of-the-art RL baselines, trained for 1M steps, without any training. Finally, we show the potential of games as a test bed for LLMs.

Conversational tutoring systems (CTSs) offer learning experiences driven by natural language interaction. They are known to promote high levels of cognitive engagement and benefit learning outcomes, particularly in reasoning tasks. Nonetheless, the time and cost required to author CTS content is a major obstacle to widespread adoption. In this paper, we introduce a novel type of CTS that leverages the recent advances in large language models (LLMs) in two ways: First, the system induces a tutoring script automatically from a lesson text. Second, the system automates the script orchestration via two LLM-based agents (Ruffle&Riley) with the roles of a student and a professor in a learning-by-teaching format. The system allows a free-form conversation that follows the ITS-typical inner and outer loop structure. In an initial between-subject online user study (N = 100) comparing Ruffle&Riley to simpler QA chatbots and reading activity, we found no significant differences in post-test scores. Nonetheless, in the learning experience survey, Ruffle&Riley users expressed higher ratings of understanding and remembering and further perceived the offered support as more helpful and the conversation as coherent. Our study provides insights for a new generation of scalable CTS technologies.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown exceptional performance in various tasks, one of their most prominent drawbacks is generating inaccurate or false information with a confident tone. In this paper, we provide evidence that the LLM's internal state can be used to reveal the truthfulness of statements. This includes both statements provided to the LLM, and statements that the LLM itself generates. Our approach is to train a classifier that outputs the probability that a statement is truthful, based on the hidden layer activations of the LLM as it reads or generates the statement. Experiments demonstrate that given a set of test sentences, of which half are true and half false, our trained classifier achieves an average of 71\% to 83\% accuracy labeling which sentences are true versus false, depending on the LLM base model. Furthermore, we explore the relationship between our classifier's performance and approaches based on the probability assigned to the sentence by the LLM. We show that while LLM-assigned sentence probability is related to sentence truthfulness, this probability is also dependent on sentence length and the frequencies of words in the sentence, resulting in our trained classifier providing a more reliable approach to detecting truthfulness, highlighting its potential to enhance the reliability of LLM-generated content and its practical applicability in real-world scenarios.

The task of triplet extraction aims to extract pairs of entities and their corresponding relations from unstructured text. Most existing methods train an extraction model on training data involving specific target relations, and are incapable of extracting new relations that were not observed at training time. Generalizing the model to unseen relations typically requires fine-tuning on synthetic training data which is often noisy and unreliable. We show that by reducing triplet extraction to a template infilling task over a pre-trained language model (LM), we can equip the extraction model with zero-shot learning capabilities and eliminate the need for additional training data. We propose a novel framework, ZETT (ZEro-shot Triplet extraction by Template infilling), that aligns the task objective to the pre-training objective of generative transformers to generalize to unseen relations. Experiments on FewRel and Wiki-ZSL datasets demonstrate that ZETT shows consistent and stable performance, outperforming previous state-of-the-art methods, even when using automatically generated templates. https://github.com/megagonlabs/zett/

Pre-trained large language models (LLMs) capture procedural knowledge about the world. Recent work has leveraged LLM's ability to generate abstract plans to simplify challenging control tasks, either by action scoring, or action modeling (fine-tuning). However, the transformer architecture inherits several constraints that make it difficult for the LLM to directly serve as the agent: e.g. limited input lengths, fine-tuning inefficiency, bias from pre-training, and incompatibility with non-text environments. To maintain compatibility with a low-level trainable actor, we propose to instead use the knowledge in LLMs to simplify the control problem, rather than solving it. We propose the Plan, Eliminate, and Track (PET) framework. The Plan module translates a task description into a list of high-level sub-tasks. The Eliminate module masks out irrelevant objects and receptacles from the observation for the current sub-task. Finally, the Track module determines whether the agent has accomplished each sub-task. On the AlfWorld instruction following benchmark, the PET framework leads to a significant 15% improvement over SOTA for generalization to human goal specifications.

One of the challenges faced by conversational agents is their inability to identify unstated presumptions of their users' commands, a task trivial for humans due to their common sense. In this paper, we propose a zero-shot commonsense reasoning system for conversational agents in an attempt to achieve this. Our reasoner uncovers unstated presumptions from user commands satisfying a general template of if-(state), then-(action), because-(goal). Our reasoner uses a state-of-the-art transformer-based generative commonsense knowledge base (KB) as its source of background knowledge for reasoning. We propose a novel and iterative knowledge query mechanism to extract multi-hop reasoning chains from the neural KB which uses symbolic logic rules to significantly reduce the search space. Similar to any KBs gathered to date, our commonsense KB is prone to missing knowledge. Therefore, we propose to conversationally elicit the missing knowledge from human users with our novel dynamic question generation strategy, which generates and presents contextualized queries to human users. We evaluate the model with a user study with human users that achieves a 35% higher success rate compared to SOTA.