Who Am I? History-Aware Profiles for Student Simulation in Tutoring Dialogues

AI tutors are most useful when they adapt to each student's strengths, weaknesses, and preferred guidance, but evidence about which guidance works for which student is sparse, slow, and costly to collect from real learners. Student simulators can provide this signal as a proxy, yet existing approaches are limited: state-tracking models fit student behavior but struggle to process explanations or corrections, while LLM role-play follows guidance fluently but does not reliably match the competence of the student being imitated. We present StudentSim, a training framework that turns sparse per-student data into individualized simulators through pooled training followed by per-student specialization. The resulting simulators both mirror a student's own responses and update them under tutor guidance. We also introduce StudentSimEval, a standardized protocol covering 60 students across chess, second-language English writing, and mathematics, using public learner datasets with de-identified records shared for research. StudentSimEval measures behavioral fidelity (F), or how well a simulator matches a student's responses, and guidance responsiveness (R), or how readily it updates under tutor guidance, with all methods fit and evaluated on the same records. Across all three domains, StudentSim outperforms GPT-5.4 on both metrics. In chess, StudentSim reaches F=0.51 and R=0.91, compared with 0.23 and 0.72 for GPT-5.4 and 0.45 and 0.27 for Maia2. As a proof of concept, using StudentSim as a reward model for tutor reinforcement learning produces a chess tutor that expert humans rate as more accurate, better-guided, and more personalized than a no-RL baseline and a tutor trained against a GPT-5.4 simulator reward. Code is available at https://github.com/microsoft/StudentSim.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based simulators often reproduce observable actions but fail to capture the underlying reasoning behind them. In education, where student simulation is increasingly used for various applications such as evaluating tutoring systems, this gap is especially pronounced. Two students may submit identical submissions for entirely different reasons. We present INTERNAL STUDENT DIALOGUE (INSIDE), a student modeling framework that fine-tunes LLMs not only to act like students but also to think like them. INSIDE generates internal dialogue grounded in Bloom's Taxonomy across cognitive, affective, and action dimensions, and fine-tunes models on paired think traces and actions. We baseline against different prompting frameworks and evaluate on two axes: fidelity of simulated actions and quality of generated internal dialogue. Our evaluations show that INSIDE improves simulation fidelity in both action fidelity, matching code generation of real students, and reasoning alignment, achieving the highest alignment across models up to 57.9%.

Simulated students generated by computational models provide a practical way to evaluate tutoring strategies and pedagogical approaches used by human and AI tutors. However, such simulations should account for disengaged behaviors, including gaming the system, wheel-spinning, and off-task behavior, because tutors may need different responses for different learner states. We present Disengagement-Aware Student Simulators (DAS2), a reproducible pre-deployment protocol that models five learner-engagement states: engaged, gaming, wheel-spinning, off-task, and mixed, and evaluates AI tutor performance across these states. Using ASSISTments09, two coders independently labeled 100 sampled tutoring sessions based on anonymized interaction-log summaries. They achieved 84% agreement (Cohen's kappa = 0.78), and among agreed cases, human consensus labels matched DAS2 rule-based labels in 81% of cases (kappa = 0.75). Conditioning simulations on intended learner states reduced the correctness-rate gap between simulated and authentic sessions from 0.54 to 0.20 for gaming and from 0.51 to 0.18 for wheel-spinning. Fine-tuned Qwen2.5-7B better matched authentic response-time distributions, while prompt-only GPT-4o generated more distinguishable learner states. Evaluation of five AI tutors from the Claude, Llama, Gemini, Qwen, and GPT families showed that relative rankings remained stable across learner states and interaction lengths, while absolute performance varied, revealing state-specific differences in tutor support. Human validation further showed that automated tutor evaluation does not fully align with human judgment. DAS2 provides a pre-deployment framework for evaluating how AI tutors respond to diverse learner-engagement states before deployment.