Abstract
Large language models are increasingly used as math tutors, raising two questions: can a single LLM detect a student's error, diagnose the underlying misconception, and remediate it through multi-turn dialogue - and can we trust the numbers that report how well it does? We address both with MISCONCEPTDIALOGUE, a fully automated framework that runs the full pipeline on five open-weight LLM tutors (7B-14B) interacting with LLM-simulated students over 5,000+ dialogues - a deliberately simulated protocol (paired conditions, a wrong-diagnosis control unsafe with real learners, scale) whose results do not establish real-student learning. On measurement, our headline finding is uncomfortable for the field: benchmark-style exact-match scoring common in standard math NLP - a lower-bound stress test - reports 42.1% measured Remediation Success Rate on identical dialogues where a human-calibrated LLM-as-judge reports 81.3%, a 39.2 percentage-point spread larger than the combined effects of tutor model, teaching strategy, and supplied diagnostic information. This is not a single-judge artifact: four independent LLM judges and 200 human annotations converge to within a few points (kappa up to 0.91). On capability, the verdict is equally striking: the score barely changes whether we tell the tutor the student's actual misconception or a deliberately swapped one - under the tested diagnosis-presentation format, these tutors show little evidence of reliably conditioning on the diagnostic information they are handed. For LLM tutoring evaluation to mature, multi-criterion scoring with multi-judge convergence and human anchoring should become standard practice - and the measurement question deserves as much scrutiny as the capability question it claims to answer.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.31679
