CourseBlueprint: A Structured Pipeline for Adaptive Pedagogical Video Generation Grounded in Course Corpora

Long-horizon video generation has advanced in visual quality, yet existing methods still struggle to maintain knowledge consistency and coherent pedagogical narratives across multi-shot instructional videos, especially in STEM domains. To address these challenges, we propose EduStory, a unified framework for reliable instructional video generation. EduStory integrates pedagogical state modeling to track persistent knowledge states, script-guided structured control to organize multi-shot narratives, and learning-oriented evaluation metrics to assess knowledge fidelity and constraint satisfaction. To support rigorous evaluation, we further introduce EduVideoBench, a diagnostic benchmark with multi-granularity annotations, including pedagogical storyboards, shot-level semantics, and knowledge state transitions, together with baseline tasks for controllable instructional video generation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that domain-aware state modeling and structured control substantially reduce narrative breakdown and improve alignment with instructional intent. These results highlight the significance of domain-specific structural constraints and tailored benchmarks for advancing reliable, controllable, and also trustworthy long-horizon video generation.

Visual planning asks a model to generate the remaining steps of a procedure in natural language given a partial video context and a goal. Progress on this task is bottlenecked by annotation: clean labeled datasets are small, domain-narrow, and encode a single execution trajectory per example, even though many valid orderings exist. Large-scale instructional video corpora offer orders of magnitude more procedural content, but supervised fine-tuning on pseudo-labels from their noisy ASR narrations propagates segmentation and alignment errors and stays single-trajectory. We identify a key asymmetry: extracting clean step labels from noisy video is hard, but verifying whether a generated step sequence is temporally grounded in ASR transcripts is cheap and scales to millions of videos via precomputed text embeddings. We exploit this asymmetry in RECIPE, which uses grounding quality as a reward for GRPO, turning the noisy corpus into a verifier rather than a label source. The framework applies uniformly to two planner input configurations (Socratic, with a textual history extracted by a frozen VLM, and Video, consuming video tokens directly) and to annotated and weakly supervised regimes. We evaluate on 7 procedural benchmarks using a reference-based LLM-as-judge protocol scoring plans across 6 procedural criteria. RECIPE-RL improves over the base checkpoint at all scales (0.5B, 3B, 7B) and every benchmark, with macro-accuracy gains of +7 to +8 points in-domain and up to +16 points zero-shot. It outperforms supervised fine-tuning on both annotated and pseudo-labeled plans (the latter degrades the base) and remains robust without human annotations. Used as the proposal stage of a prior propose-assess-search planner, it improves over the strongest zero-shot baseline at every horizon on Visual Planning for Assistance, and on COIN it preserves the generation diversity that SFT collapses.

AI agents can now solve problems, answer like subject experts, and generate long-form multimodal content. However, whether they can adapt a lesson to fit a specified learner, which education calls Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), has not been benchmarked. To measure it, we introduce the Teaching Monster Challenge, the first instructional video generation benchmark to treat the learner persona as an explicit evaluation criterion. Each system is given a topic and a learner persona and must generate a complete instructional video. Every video is screened by an LLM-judge, ranked by crowd pairwise voting, and finalized by an expert panel. The first edition shows that today's systems handle the content well but are far weaker at presenting it and adapting it to the learner. The same process exposes a limit of automatic judging. The LLM-judge separates a clear low-performing tail but ranks the strongest systems poorly. The strongest systems receive nearly identical scores from the judge, so its ranking of them does not match human preference. Progress therefore requires not only better teaching systems but also better automatic judges, and we release the benchmark, rubric, and human judgments as a testbed for both.