cs.CYMar 25, 2026

From Untamed Black Box to Interpretable Pedagogical Orchestration: The Ensemble of Specialized LLMs Architecture for Adaptive Tutoring

Authors: Nizam Kadir

Organizations: Singapore University of Technology and Design, Singapore 487372, Singapore

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

Monolithic Large Language Models (LLMs) used in educational dialogue often behave as "black boxes," where pedagogical decisions are implicit and difficult to audit, frequently violating instructional constraints by providing answers too early. We introduce the Ensemble of Specialized LLMS (ES-LLMS) architecture that separates decision-making from wording. Pedagogical actions are selected by a deterministic rules-based orchestrator coordinating specialized agents covering tutoring, assessment, feedback, scaffolding, motivation and ethics-guided by an interpretable Bayesian Knowledge Tracing (BKT) student model. An LLM renderer surface-realizes the chosen action in natural language. This design emphasizes reliability and controllability: constraints such as "attempt-before-hint" and hint caps are enforced as explicit rules, and the system logs per-turn agent traces and constraint checks. Validation of pedagogical quality via human expert reviewers (N=6) and a multi-LLM-as-Judge panel (six state-of-the-art models) showed that ES-LLMs were preferred in 91.7% and 79.2% of cases, respectively. The architecture significantly outperformed monolithic baselines across all seven dimensions, particularly in Scaffolding & Guidance, and Trust & Explainability. Furthermore, a Monte Carlo simulation (N=2,400) exposed a "Mastery Gain Paradox," where monolithic tutors inflated short-term performance through over-assistance. In contrast, ES-LLMs achieved 100% adherence to pedagogical constraints (e.g., attempt-before-hint) and a 3.3x increase in hint efficiency. Operationally, ES-LLMs reduced costs by 54% and latency by 22% by utilizing stateless prompts. We conclude that structural decoupling is essential for transforming stochastic models into trustworthy, verifiable and resource-efficient pedagogical agents.

More in this topic

Intelligent Tutoring Systems

Intelligent tutoring systems model learner knowledge and adapt instruction, practice, hints, and feedback to support learning.

See all 154 papers

Explore similar work

CardsList
Oct 6, 2026

Sherpa: Teaching LLMs to Teach Adaptively

Large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly capable problem solvers, but being able to solve a problem is not the same as being able to teach it. Existing approaches to training LLMs as teachers rely on demonstrations, preference data, or predefined pedagogical criteria that specify what good teaching looks like. However, these signals are often not grounded in individual student learning outcomes, where effective teaching strategies can vary substantially across learners. To address this, we introduce Sherpa, a multi-turn reinforcement learning framework that instantiates multiple student archetypes with LLMs conditioned on distinct learning preferences and trains a teacher model to adapt its instruction by directly maximizing their learning outcomes. Teacher LLMs trained with Sherpa improve instructed students' performance across all archetypes by an average of 20.5 percentage points. Under MathTutorBench's evaluation, Sherpa raises the overall pedagogy score from 52.5% to 79.2%, indicating better teaching responses. Our human studies show that the trained teacher is preferred over the base model in 79.6% of pairwise comparisons. Together, Sherpa trains LLM teachers to adapt to diverse simulated students and become better aligned with human teachers, paving the road towards AI tutors teaching real students.

Weixian Xu, Yanzhe Zhang, Zora Zhiruo Wang +2

Stanford University · Georgia Tech · Carnegie Mellon University

RL for Language ModelsIntelligent Tutoring SystemsAI in EducationAdaptive Learning
AskPDF
Apr 20, 2026

Evaluating Answer Leakage Robustness of LLM Tutors against Adversarial Student Attacks

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in education, yet their default helpfulness often conflicts with pedagogical principles. Prior work evaluates pedagogical quality via answer leakage-the disclosure of complete solutions instead of scaffolding-but typically assumes well-intentioned learners, leaving tutor robustness under student misuse largely unexplored. In this paper, we study scenarios where students behave adversarially and aim to obtain the correct answer from the tutor. We evaluate a broad set of LLM-based tutor models, including different model families, pedagogically aligned models, and a multi-agent design, under a range of adversarial student attacks. We adapt six groups of adversarial and persuasive techniques to the educational setting and use them to probe how likely a tutor is to reveal the final answer. We evaluate answer leakage robustness using different types of in-context adversarial student agents, finding that they often fail to carry out effective attacks. We therefore introduce an adversarial student agent that we fine-tune to jailbreak LLM-based tutors, which we propose as the core of a standardized benchmark for evaluating tutor robustness. Finally, we present simple but effective defense strategies that reduce answer leakage and strengthen the robustness of LLM-based tutors in adversarial scenarios.

Jin Zhao, Marta Knežević, Tanja Käser

†Work done during exchange at EPFL.

LLM EvaluationIntelligent Tutoring SystemsAdversarial Attacks on LLMsAdversarial Robustness of Language Models
AskPDF
Apr 2, 2026

Do Large Language Models Mentalize When They Teach?

How do LLMs decide what to teach next: by reasoning about a learner's knowledge, or by using simpler rules of thumb? We test this in a controlled task previously used to study human teaching strategies. On each trial, a teacher LLM sees a hypothetical learner's trajectory through a reward-annotated directed graph and must reveal a single edge so the learner would choose a better path if they replanned. We run a range of LLMs as simulated teachers and fit their trial-by-trial choices with the same cognitive models used for humans: a Bayes-Optimal teacher that infers which transitions the learner is missing (inverse planning), weaker Bayesian variants, heuristic baselines (e.g., reward based), and non-mentalizing utility models. In a baseline experiment matched to the stimuli presented to human subjects, most LLMs perform well, show little change in strategy over trials, and their graph-by-graph performance is similar to that of humans. Model comparison (BIC) shows that Bayes-Optimal teaching best explains most models' choices. When given a scaffolding intervention, models follow auxiliary inference- or reward-focused prompts, but these scaffolds do not reliably improve later teaching on heuristic-incongruent test graphs and can sometimes reduce performance. Overall, cognitive model fits provide insight into LLM tutoring policies and show that prompt compliance does not guarantee better teaching decisions.

Sevan K. Harootonian, Mark K. Ho, Thomas L. Griffiths +2

Department of Psychology, Princeton University · Department of Psychology, New York University · Department of Computer Science, Department of Psychology, Princeton University +1

Theory of Mind
AskPDF