Good tutoring adapts to the individual: it tracks what a learner knows, notices why they go wrong, and asks the next question that will help most. Most deployed tutoring tools instead serve fixed item banks and treat a wrong answer as a single bit of signal. We present CoLearn, an interactive, agentic tutor that supports an iterative tutoring loop: the learner practises, and the system builds an evidence-grounded memory of the learner's mastery and misconceptions. This memory is updated as evidence accumulates and is used to generate the next personalised question. CoLearn has three components: (i) a persistent learner-state memory that updates per-topic mastery with a soft-evidence variant of Bayesian Knowledge Tracing, where a large language model acts as a continuous observation function; (ii) adaptive question generation that targets the learner's weakest topic and recurring misconceptions; and (iii) an evidence view that makes personalisation visible and testable through live progress visualisation and blind A/B comparison. In blind A/B evaluation, questions conditioned on this memory are preferred over non-personalised ones 68-69% of the time, and in persona simulations with hidden ground-truth mastery the agent's belief converges toward the learner's true mastery.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: CoLearn demo workflow across learner and administrator views. The learner first configures a practice session, answers an adaptive question, and receives diagnostic feedback with answer-linked annotations and live mastery estimates. The progress and administrator views expose the same personalization evidence through learner progress, blind A/B analytics, and agent convergence diagnostics.
Figure 2: The CoLearn co-learning loop. The learner answers; an LLM grades the answer into a continuous observation; soft-evidence BKT (Eq. 1 ) updates the agent’s cross-session memory At ; the personalised generator reads that memory and a fixed strategy guideline to write the next, better-targeted question; and the loop repeats (the dashed self-evolve arrow is planned, not yet implemented). Two surfaces expose it: the learner view (live feedback and mastery) and the evidence view (progress dashboard + blind A/B).
Breakdown
n
Pref. rate
95% CI
p
Biology (overall)
18
0.68
[0.60, 0.77]
0.008
mixed learners
6
0.74
[0.71, 0.77]
strong learners
6
0.73
[0.59, 0.88]
Chemistry (overall)
18
0.69
[0.60, 0.77]
0.008
mixed learners
6
0.77
[0.61, 0.93]
strong learners
6
0.66
[0.52, 0.80]
Table 1: Blind A/B preference for personalised over non-personalised questions. Pref. rate is the mean per-rater preference, 95% CI is across raters, and p is a two-sided sign test vs. 0.5 . The mixed/strong rows are learner ability tiers (not subjects); weak-tier learners are excluded because, being weak on every skill, they cannot discriminate targeting, so the tier rows sum to fewer than the all row.
Metric
Adaptive
Random
Frozen
Weak-skill hit (warm)
0.72
0.55
0.57
Mixed learners
0.89
0.57
–
Strong learners
0.28
0.08
–
Mastery MAE ↓
0.12
0.16
0.20
Table 2: User-simulation (hidden ground-truth mastery). Weak-skill hit rows are from an 18-persona warm-start sweep; the Mastery MAE row is from the 6-persona Claude Sonnet 4.5-graded run. Weak-skill hit = fraction of served items on a truly-weak skill (higher = better targeting); Mastery MAE = final agent belief vs. true mastery (lower = better). Adaptive beats the Random-topic / Frozen controls on both. (Weak personas are weak on every skill, so they cannot discriminate targeting and are excluded from the per-tier rows.)
Figure 3: Memory convergence from the logged attempts ( 6 personas, 132 rounds, live framework grader Claude Sonnet 4.5). (a) Per-learner running mean belief error ∣p^−p∗∣ under Adaptive : every learner’s estimate settles toward its hidden true mastery, most visibly the two strong learners that start far off. (b) Mean update magnitude ∣Δp∣ by attempt (thin = per-attempt mean, bold = linear trend): under Adaptive it shrinks ( 0.14→0.10 ) as the belief locks on, while the Random-topic and Frozen controls stay flat or drift upward.
Figure 4: Per-item response distribution of the 1–5 Likert questionnaire over 16 raters. Blue = agree, grey = neutral, red = disagree. No item drew a strongly-disagree response; the weakest is the streamed-wait item (Q4), echoing the measured latency (§ 3 ).
Round type
Next/gen (s)
Answer (s)
Cost ($/rnd)
Short-answer
12.1
20.2
≈ 0.015
Multiple-choice
7.6
0.01
≈ 0.005
Table 3: Efficiency on the live backend (Bedrock Claude Sonnet 4.5). Short-answer ≈ 32 s/round (grade+feedback dominate); MCQ ≈ 7.6 s (deterministic answer). Cost is estimated from token usage.
Education is one of the most promising real-world applications for Large Language Models (LLMs). However, current LLMs rely on static pre-training knowledge and lack adaptation to individual learners, while existing RAG systems fall short in delivering personalized, guided feedback. To bridge this gap, we present DeepTutor, a fully open-source agentic framework that unifies citation-grounded problem tutoring with difficulty-calibrated question generation. A hybrid personalization engine couples static knowledge grounding with dynamic learner memory, continuously adapting each interaction to the student's evolving needs. The same personalization substrate further extends to adaptive learning workflows, interactive books, and proactive multi-channel tutoring agents. To evaluate personalized tutoring, we introduce TutorBench, an interactive benchmark incorporating customized learner profiles grounded in university-level curricula across five domains. We further propose an LLM-based first-person interactive evaluation protocol that conducts assessments via a profile-driven student simulator. Complementary evaluations on established benchmarks, supported by human-alignment and ablation studies, confirm the framework's robustness and general utility. Results show that DeepTutor improves personalized metrics by 10.8% on average and strengthens general agentic reasoning across five backbone models by 29.4%.
Large language models are now widely used for everyday learning, but the underlying interactions are typically unstructured chats rather than following a curriculum. Unlike formal online learning systems, these interactions carry no prior record of the student, so any estimate of what the student already knows must be inferred from the dialogue itself. We show that this gap is not closed by scaling models alone. Frontier and education-tuned LLMs perform poorly when asked to tutor a student over an extended session, because doing so requires three things at once. The tutor must sequence a curriculum, conduct Socratic dialogue, and infer the student's knowledge state from that dialogue. We propose separating these responsibilities. Given a student query, our system constructs a prerequisite knowledge graph in which subtopics are nodes and dependencies are edges, and frames tutoring as deciding which node to teach next and how many dialogue turns to spend on it before moving on. A lightweight PPO policy handles this sequencing decision, while an LLM conducts the Socratic exchange at the chosen node and returns a signal of student progress. Across held-out STEM and non-STEM topics, our PPO-paired tutor outperforms heuristic baselines, frontier general-purpose models, and a model specialised for Socratic dialogue: on both the rate at which students reach full curriculum mastery and the number of turns required. Explicit curriculum structure delivers gains that scaling the underlying model does not.
Sidney Tio, Arunesh Sinha, Pradeep Varakantham
School of Computing and Information Systems Singapore Management University · Department of Management Science and Information Systems Rutgers Business School
Long-term personalized tutoring requires language models to translate a learner's evolving history into appropriate instructional support. Existing LLM-based tutoring systems use memory and retrieval to personalize responses, but the pedagogical rationale linking historical evidence to teaching strategies is not always explicit. We introduce RegulaTutor, a theory-informed framework for long-term personalized tutoring that connects historical evidence, learner interpretation, and learner-facing instruction. Guided by self-regulated learning (SRL) research, its tutoring harness operationalizes a cognitive, affective, metacognitive, and motivational (CAMM) framework for deriving evidence-supported learner interpretations and teaching policies. The resulting policies retain links to their supporting evidence and are updated as new observations arrive. This staged workflow also supports systematic refinement through PairRoute, an offline procedure that uses intermediate execution records to distinguish harness, model, and mixed failures. PairRoute proposes and evaluates targeted harness revisions, then constructs reviewed stage-level supervision for confirmed model failures remaining under the selected harness. We focus this refinement on historical evidence acquisition, which underpins personalized instruction and allows outputs to be checked against learning records and reference answers. RegulaTutor improves historical-evidence accuracy, learner diagnosis, and judged teaching quality on average across evaluated model configurations. PairRoute results show an endpoint improvement in standalone-model historical-evidence accuracy over the refinement trajectory. Together, these results highlight RegulaTutor's potential to support lifelong personalized education through instructional policies that evolve with learner histories and targeted improvements to the tutoring system.
Yonggang Li, Boqian Han, Rui Sheng +2
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · The Chinese University of Hong Kong