From Mastery Profile to Simulated Response: Stochastic Student Knowledge Graphs (SSKG) for Faithful LLM Student Simulation
Authors: Yuan An, Emily Wang, Benjamin Wang, Ruhma Hashmi
Organizations: School of Computer and Information Sciences, Nick Howley College of Engineering and Computing Drexel University Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate students at different mastery levels to generate synthetic training data and stress-test tutoring systems. Existing approaches primarily leverage an LLM to answer questions or perform tests while instructing it to simulate various skill levels. However, LLMs tend to execute at their full built-in capability regardless of target skill levels. We demonstrate this limitation on SAT questions across five mastery levels, where three LLMs consistently achieve 96.8-100% accuracy. To faithfully simulate student behavior, we propose a Stochastic Student Knowledge Graph (SSKG)-based approach that leverages the strengths of LLM in different ways. Using human-in-the-loop workflows, LLMs extract a Curriculum Knowledge Graph (CKG) from course materials, decompose solution paths into CKG triples, and map incorrect distractors. A student's mastery profile is represented as an SSKG, assigning mastery probabilities to CKG triples. When solving a problem, the SSKG is sampled to determine the outcome, after which an LLM generates a rationale consistent with the sampled result. Compared to seven baselines which fail to separate profiles and maintain 86.5-100% accuracy, our SSKG-based approach achieves 44.1-85.2% accuracy from low to high-mastery profiles, creating a clear monotonic gradient. An ablation study demonstrates that taxonomy awareness contributes most significantly to these fidelity gains, particularly for lower-mastery profiles.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Traditional LLM-driven student simulation (a) versus SSKG-grounded simulation (b). In the traditional pipeline (a), a question item and a student profile are handed directly to an LLM, which decides both the simulated answer and its correctness. In our pipeline (b), a Curriculum Knowledge Graph (CKG) is built as a set of fine-grained triples extracted from the source curriculum. A student profile is represented as a Stochastic Student Knowledge Graph (SSKG), which assigns a mastery probability to each CKG triple at a time point. Each question is mapped to the chain of triples required to solve it. We simulate a student profile over an item by sampling over the item’s chain against the SSKG’s mastery probabilities to decide whether the response is correct. The resulting item paired with this correctness label is then passed to the LLM, which narrates a first-person rationale consistent with the outcome.
Question Stem
Alan drives an average of 100 miles each week. His car can travel an average of 25 miles per gallon of gasoline. Alan would like to reduce his weekly expenditure on gasoline by 5.Assuminggasolinecosts4 per gallon, which equation can Alan use to determine how many fewer average miles, m , he should drive each week?
Choices
(A) 425m=95 (B) 425m=5 (C) 254m=95 (D) 254m=5
Correct answer
D
Skill
Linear equations in one variable
Difficulty
Hard (College-Board-calibrated)
Rationale
Choice D is correct. Since gasoline costs 4pergallon,andsinceAlan’scartravelsanaverageof25milespergallon,theexpression4/25givesthecost,indollarspermile,todrivethecar.MultiplyingbymgivesthecostforAlantodrivemmilesinhiscar.Alanwantstoreducehisweeklyspendingby5, so setting 4/25m equal to 5 gives the number of miles, m , by which he must reduce his driving.
TABLE I: Illustrative example: An SAT Algebra Question.
Fig. 2: An excerpt of a CKG’s number-system connections
( Variable , is , A letter representing a changeable number )
def.
T149
( Converting units , uses , The identity property of mult. )
rel.
T150
( Making unit conversions , has_step_1 , Multiply by a unit fraction )
proc.
T170
( Translating a sentence , has_step_1 , Locate the “equals” word )
proc.
T171
( Translating a sentence , has_step_2 , Translate the left side )
proc.
T172
( Translating a sentence , has_step_3 , Translate the right side )
proc.
TABLE II: Excerpt of the illustrative item’s triple chain.
Fig. 3: The illustrative item’s triple chain and distractor map: failures localized at T149/T150 and T170–T172 route to choices B and C, respectively.
Fig. 4: A procedure node: a precondition triple for the Finding the x -intercept of a line procedure.
Profile
Archetype
Mastery Probability Generation
P1
near-expert
U(0.85,0.99) all triples
P2
average, inconsistent
U(0.50,0.70) all triples
P3
struggling
U(0.10,0.30) all triples
P4
prerequisite gap
U(0.10,0.25) early, U(0.60,0.80) later
P5
strong basics, weak advanced
U(0.80,0.95) early, U(0.15,0.35) later
TABLE III: Student profiles as SSKG snapshots: natural-language archetype and per-triple mastery generation.
Arm
Adds
a
Single draw oki∼Bernoulli(pi) per triple, raw taxonomy-blind pi , guess floor 0.25 on failure.
b
Retrieval/execution decomposition: knowsi∼Bernoulli(pi) , then slipsi∼Bernoulli(s=0.05) ; still taxonomy-blind pi .
c
Taxonomy awareness: definitional pi→pdef per Eq. ( 7 ) ( κdef=0.3 ); active set C(q) in Eq. ( 6 ) drops to procedural/relational/gap steps (definitional failures are narration-only).
d
Distractor routing: an execution failure at a mapped triple selects that triple’s specific wrong-answer choice instead of a uniform-random one.
TABLE IV: The four-arm ablation ladder. Each arm adds one mechanism on top of the previous.
ID
Method
What controls ability
B1
Vanilla LLM, no student description
nothing
B2
Persona prompt [ 8 , 7 ]
the prompt
B3
Level prompt, 1 to 5 [ 6 ]
the prompt
B4a
Skill-list prompt, student voice [ 8 ]
the prompt
B4b
Skill-list prompt, teacher predicts student [ 8 ]
the prompt
B5
Persona plus chain-of-thought [ 28 ]
the prompt
TABLE V: Baselines for Comparison
College Board skill
Profile P4
Profile P5
Linear equations in one variable
not learned (W)
mastered (S)
Linear equations in two variables
shaky (S)
not learned (W)
Linear functions
shaky (S)
not learned (W)
Systems of two linear equations
shaky (S)
not learned (W)
Linear inequalities
shaky (S)
not learned (W)
TABLE VI: Weak Skills (W) and Strong Skills (S)
Method
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
B1
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
B2
1.000
0.997
0.968
1.000
1.000
B3
0.987
0.984
0.897
n/a
n/a
B4a
1.000
0.997
0.968
0.997
0.992
B4b
1.000
0.894
0.865
0.912
0.976
B5
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
TABLE VII: Accuracy by method and profile (Eq. 8 )
Large language model-based role-play simulation creates interactive agents that portray people, characters, or users for training, testing, and research.
Large language models (LLMs) can fluently generate student-like responses, making them attractive as simulated students for training and evaluating AI tutors and human educators. Yet such simulators are typically evaluated by output similarity to real students, not by whether they behave like students with coherent misconceptions during interaction. We introduce a controlled framework for evaluating misconception faithfulness, whether a simulator maintains a misconception-driven belief state and updates selectively when feedback addresses the underlying misconception. Central to our framework is a misconception-contrastive feedback protocol that compares targeted feedback against two controls: misaligned feedback (targeting a different but plausible misconception) and generic feedback (only identifying answer is wrong). We propose Selective Flip Score (SFS), which quantifies how much more often a simulator flips its answer under targeted feedback than under contrastive controls. Across seven LLMs (4B-120B), multiple datasets, and prompting strategies, simulators exhibit near-zero SFS, correcting their answers at similarly high rates regardless of feedback relevance. Further analyses reveal a sycophantic failure mode: models behave less like students with misconceptions but more like problem-solvers who treat any corrective signal as a cue to abandon the simulated belief and re-solve from internal knowledge. To address this, we develop a post-training pipeline spanning supervised fine-tuning (SFT), preference optimization, and reinforcement learning (RL) with an SFS-aligned reward; SFT yields notable gains up to +0.56, and SFS-aligned RL provides more consistent improvements than preference optimization. Our results establish misconception faithfulness as a challenging yet trainable property, motivating a shift from static output matching toward interactive, belief-aware student modeling.
Heejin Do, Shashank Sonkar, Mrinmaya Sachan
ETH Zürich, ETH AI Center · University of Central Florida · ETH Zürich
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%.
Rose Niousha, Minwoo Kang, Narges Norouzi
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences University of California, Berkeley
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human behavior but frequently fail to exhibit realistic cognitive constraints, suffering from a "superhuman bias." Using a dataset of over 71,000 reading comprehension responses from 2,359 primary-school students (grades 4--6), we demonstrate that standard persona prompting yields near-perfect, deterministic performance, failing to capture the natural variance of developing readers. To address this, we introduce the Cognitively Bounded User Simulator (CBUS), an architectural framework that explicitly models the restricted working memory of young readers through an episodic bottleneck. Within this framework, we formalize two distinct test-taking strategies to emulate different reading behaviors. Our evaluation shows that explicitly modeling cognitive bounds significantly narrows the simulation gap across multiple LLM backbones, demonstrating that enforcing architectural constraints is more effective for high-fidelity simulation than simply scaling raw model capabilities.