Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.08703

Agreement Is Not Validity: Cross-Model LLM Consensus in Diagnosing Student Failure Modes in K-12 Math Tutoring Dialogue

Clayton Cohn·Joyce Fonteles·Kirk Vanacore·Gianni Mazza·Candida Crawford·Tom Hooper·Gautam Biswas·Rene Kizilcec
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In K-12 mathematics tutoring, student-tutor dialogue provides rich evidence of learners' problem-solving processes and sources of difficulty. Learning analytics research increasingly relies on large language models (LLMs) to extract such information from dialogue for a variety of downstream tasks, including knowledge tracing, behavioral modeling, and diagnosis of student reasoning errors. However, the validity of these model-generated interpretations remains insufficiently understood. In this exploratory study, we examine the validity of LLM classifications of five student failure modes in mathematics tutoring dialogue using an operational diagnostic codebook: uncertainty, misattribution, operator selection, conceptual gap, and procedural slip. Across models, human-LLM agreement was moderate (kappa = .524-.597), while cross-model agreement was substantially higher (kappa = .755-.781; alpha = .769). These findings show that cross-model agreement can create a misleading appearance of correctness, challenging the assumption that consensus among LLMs constitutes evidence of valid learner interpretation. For learning analytics, the implication is clear: scalable labeling is useful only if the inferred constructs are valid, and model consensus cannot substitute for independent evidence of that validity.

Explore related subjects

cs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Clayton Cohn, Joyce Fonteles, Kirk Vanacore, Gianni Mazza, Candida Crawford, Tom Hooper, Gautam Biswas, Rene Kizilcec. 2026-10-06. Agreement Is Not Validity: Cross-Model LLM Consensus in Diagnosing Student Failure Modes in K-12 Math Tutoring Dialogue. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.08703

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Boosting Large Language Models with Mask Fine-Tuning

The large language model (LLM) is typically integrated into the mainstream optimization protocol. However, it remains underexplored whether maintaining the model integrity is \textit{indispensable} for promising performance. In this work, we introduce Mask Fine-Tuning (MFT), a novel LLM fine-tuning paradigm demonstrating that carefully breaking the model's structural integrity can surprisingly improve performance without updating model weights. MFT learns and applies binary masks to well-optimized models, using the standard LLM fine-tuning objective as supervision. Based on fully fine-tuned models, MFT uses the same fine-tuning datasets to achieve consistent performance gains across domains and backbones (e.g., an average gain of 2.70/4.15 on IFEval with LLaMA2-7B/3.1-8B). Detailed ablation studies and analyses examine the proposed MFT from different perspectives, including the sparse ratio and the loss surface. Additionally, when deployed on well-trained models, MFT is compatible with other LLM optimization procedures to improve overall model performance. Furthermore, this study extends the masking operation beyond its conventional use in network pruning for model compression to encompass a broader range of model capabilities.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Too Categorical to be Human: Emotion Concepts in LLMs and Humans

Understanding human emotions is central to user-facing AI applications, safety alignment, and the simulation of human behavior. As emotional stimuli shape high-stakes behavior in Large Language Models (LLMs), there is increasing interest in how models represent emotion concepts internally. Mechanistic accounts of these representations, however, cannot be compared directly against humans: emotion processing in humans is highly distributed and yields no equivalent neural representation. To understand whether LLMs internalize emotion concepts in a way similar to humans, we propose characterizing the abstract concept of an emotion using external behavioral signatures, which we term behavioral representations. Using the theory of cognitive appraisals, which enables representing emotional situations along interpretable evaluative dimensions, we create a benchmark dataset of emotional scenarios spanning 15 emotion categories. We elicit behavioral representations of emotion concepts from LLMs and humans using our benchmark, and study their structural similarity. We find that LLMs represent emotion concepts more categorically, homogeneously, and determinately than humans, representing a single emotion concept with less internal diversity, and place different emotions further apart. The categorical structure of representations in LLMs is further robust to contextual variation, including with different task framing and demographic personas. Analyzing model checkpoints across different training stages, we also find that the discretized nature of representations appears after the mid-training stage itself and is unaffected by different post-training strategies. Through our results, we highlight a key difference in how LLMs behaviorally represent emotion concepts, curbing the subjectivity inherent to the human experience of emotions.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

FedCoT: Communication-Efficient Federated Reasoning Enhancement for Large Language Models

Enhancing LLM reasoning in federated settings is nontrivial due to stringent computational, communication, and privacy constraints, especially in healthcare, where clinically consequential decisions require not only accuracy but also interpretable, auditable rationales to meet safety, accountability, and regulatory requirements. Conventional federated fine-tuning largely imitates final answers rather than cultivating step-by-step reasoning, often relying on privacy-sensitive centralized distillation and still incurring substantial communication overhead. We address this gap with \textbf{\ours{}}, a federated reasoning framework that combines lightweight chain-of-thought resampling with a compact discriminator for selection, and client-aware LoRA stacking with weighted classifier aggregation to accommodate heterogeneity while reducing aggregation noise and communication; clients generate candidate chains and supervision locally, and only lightweight modules are aggregated on the server. Experiments on medical reasoning benchmarks show consistent gains under tight resource budgets while keeping data local and respecting privacy, offering an interpretable and resource-efficient solution. Our code is made publicly available at https://github.com/DIaacKr/FedCoT

cs.CL↗