Abstract--High-quality personalized question banks are crucial for supporting adaptive learning and individualized assessment. Manually designing questions is time-consuming and often fails to meet diverse learning needs, making automated question generation a crucial approach to reduce teachers' workload and improve the scalability of educational resources. However, most existing question generation methods rely on single-agent or rule-based pipelines, which still produce questions with unstable quality, limited diversity, and insufficient alignment with educational goals. T o address these challenges, we propose EduAgentQG, a multi-agent collaborative framework for generating high-quality and diverse personalized questions. The framework consists of five specialized agents and operates through an iterative feedback loop: the Planner generates structured design plans and multiple question directions to enhance diversity; the Writer produces candidate questions based on the plan and optimizes their quality and diversity using feedback from the Solver and Educator; the Solver and Educator perform binary scoring across multiple evaluation dimensions and feed the evaluation results back to the Writer; the Checker conducts final verification, including answer correctness and clarity, ensuring alignment with educational goals. Through this multi-agent collaboration and iterative feedback loop, EduAgentQG generates questions that are both high-quality and diverse, while maintaining consistency with educational objectives. Experiments on two mathematics question datasets demonstrate that EduAgentQG outperforms existing single-agent and multi-agent methods in terms of question diversity, goal consistency, and overall quality. High-quality personalized question banks are crucial for supporting adaptive learning and individualized assessment [1], [2], [3]. In practical teaching, experienced educators can often determine the specific educational goals a student needs to achieve based on observation and prior knowledge [4], [5], [6]. Teachers typically engage in iterative cycles of planning, drafting, validation, and optimization to design questions that are both diagnostically effective and pedagogically meaningful, balancing knowledge coverage, cognitive skill development, and difficulty levels [7], [8]. Existing question banks may not always contain suitable questions, and even when relevant questions are available, they may have been previously attempted by students [9], [10], [11].

In the face of uncertainty, the ability to seek information is of fundamental importance.

Traditional query expansion techniques for addressing vocabulary mismatch problems in information retrieval are context-sensitive and may lead to performance degradation. As an alternative, document expansion research has gained attention, but existing methods such as Doc2Query have limitations including excessive preprocessing costs, increased index size, and reliability issues with generated content. To mitigate these problems and seek more structured and efficient alternatives, this study proposes a method that divides documents into chunk units and generates textual data for each chunk to simultaneously improve retrieval efficiency and accuracy. The proposed "Chunk Knowledge Generation Model" adopts a T5-based multi-task learning structure that simultaneously generates titles and candidate questions from each document chunk while extracting keywords from user queries. This approach maximizes computational efficiency by generating and extracting three types of semantic information in parallel through a single encoding and two decoding processes. The generated data is utilized as additional information in the retrieval system. GPT-based evaluation on 305 query-document pairs showed that retrieval using the proposed model achieved 95.41% accuracy at Top@10, demonstrating superior performance compared to document chunk-level retrieval. This study contributes by proposing an approach that simultaneously generates titles and candidate questions from document chunks for application in retrieval pipelines, and provides empirical evidence applicable to large-scale information retrieval systems by demonstrating improved retrieval accuracy through qualitative evaluation.

The widespread adoption of chat interfaces based on Large Language Models (LLMs) raises concerns about promoting superficial learning and undermining the development of critical thinking skills. Instead of relying on LLMs purely for retrieving factual information, this work explores their potential to foster deeper reasoning by generating critical questions that challenge unsupported or vague claims in debate interventions. This study is part of a shared task of the 12th Workshop on Argument Mining, co-located with ACL 2025, focused on automatic critical question generation. We propose a two-step framework involving two small-scale open source language models: a Questioner that generates multiple candidate questions and a Judge that selects the most relevant ones. Our system ranked first in the shared task competition, demonstrating the potential of the proposed LLM-based approach to encourage critical engagement with argumentative texts.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved impressive results across numerous domains, yet they experience notable deficiencies in legal question-answering tasks. LLMs often generate generalized responses that lack the logical specificity required for expert legal advice and are prone to hallucination, providing answers that appear correct but are unreliable. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) techniques offer partial solutions to address this challenge, but existing approaches typically focus only on semantic similarity, neglecting the logical structure essential to legal reasoning. In this paper, we propose the Logical-Semantic Integration Model (LSIM), a novel supervised framework that bridges semantic and logical coherence. LSIM comprises three components: reinforcement learning predicts a structured fact-rule chain for each question, a trainable Deep Structured Semantic Model (DSSM) retrieves the most relevant candidate questions by integrating semantic and logical features, and in-context learning generates the final answer using the retrieved content. Our experiments on a real-world legal QA dataset-validated through both automated metrics and human evaluation-demonstrate that LSIM significantly enhances accuracy and reliability compared to existing methods.

Despite the impressive performance of large language models (LLMs) across various benchmarks, their ability to address ambiguously specified problems--frequent in real-world interactions--remains underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce a formal definition of task ambiguity and frame the problem of task disambiguation through the lens of Bayesian Experimental Design. By posing clarifying questions, LLM agents can acquire additional task specifications, progressively narrowing the space of viable solutions and reducing the risk of generating unsatisfactory outputs. Yet, generating effective clarifying questions requires LLM agents to engage in a form of meta-cognitive reasoning, an ability LLMs may presently lack. Our proposed approach of active task disambiguation enables LLM agents to generate targeted questions maximizing the information gain. Effectively, this approach shifts the load from implicit to explicit reasoning about the space of viable solutions. Empirical results demonstrate that this form of question selection leads to more effective task disambiguation in comparison to approaches relying on reasoning solely within the space of questions.

Question answering represents a core capability of large language models (LLMs). However, when individuals encounter unfamiliar knowledge in texts, they often formulate questions that the text itself cannot answer due to insufficient understanding of the underlying information. Recent studies reveal that while LLMs can detect unanswerable questions, they struggle to assist users in reformulating these questions. Even advanced models like GPT-3.5 demonstrate limited effectiveness in this regard. To address this limitation, we propose DRS: Deep Question Reformulation with Structured Output, a novel zero-shot method aimed at enhancing LLMs ability to assist users in reformulating questions to extract relevant information from new documents. DRS combines the strengths of LLMs with a DFS-based algorithm to iteratively explore potential entity combinations and constrain outputs using predefined entities. This structured approach significantly enhances the reformulation capabilities of LLMs. Comprehensive experimental evaluations demonstrate that DRS improves the reformulation accuracy of GPT-3.5 from 23.03% to 70.42%, while also enhancing the performance of open-source models, such as Gemma2-9B, from 26.35% to 56.75%.

For MNIST, the approximated answerer is count-based and its recognition accuracy can be controlled proportional to the actual answerer's accuracy. For GuessWhat, the approximated answerer is trained in a variety of ways -- on the same training data as the actual answerer, on predicted answers from the actual answerer, on a different training data split as the actual answerer, and on a different training data split as the actual answerer followed by imitation of predicted answers on the other split. And the proposed approach outperforms the random baseline. Interestingly, the authors find that the depA* models perform better than the indA* models -- showing that training on predicted answers is a stronger signal for building an accurate mental model than just sharing training data. I'm happy to recommend this for publication.

Reference-based metrics such as BLEU and BERTScore are widely used to evaluate question generation (QG). In this study, on QG benchmarks such as SQuAD and HotpotQA, we find that using human-written references cannot guarantee the effectiveness of the reference-based metrics. Most QG benchmarks have only one reference; we replicated the annotation process and collect another reference. A good metric was expected to grade a human-validated question no worse than generated questions. However, the results of reference-based metrics on our newly collected reference disproved the metrics themselves. We propose a reference-free metric consisted of multi-dimensional criteria such as naturalness, answerability, and complexity, utilizing large language models. These criteria are not constrained to the syntactic or semantic of a single reference question, and the metric does not require a diverse set of references. Experiments reveal that our metric accurately distinguishes between high-quality questions and flawed ones, and achieves state-of-the-art alignment with human judgment.