Zexuan Fei | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

ADE: Agentic Data Evolution Framework for Human-Centered Objectives

Aligning large language models to human-centered objectives is difficult when targets are non-executable and context-dependent, limiting reliable verification and scalable supervision. Although synthetic data expands coverage, weak verification shifts the bottleneck from generation to selection. Noisy signals destabilize iterative refinement and can cause silent regressions. We propose Agentic Data Evolution (ADE), a data-centric framework that organizes synthetic supervision as evolving data snapshots. ADE improves data snapshots through a closed-loop Observation-Variation-Selection (OVS) procedure, where a steady-state admission mechanism acts as a quality ratchet that conservatively gates updates for sustained cross-round improvement. We validate these improvements through complementary intrinsic trend tracking and extrinsic post-training evaluation. On DEV300, ADE raises the intrinsic win rate from 50% to 75.81% and the extrinsic win rate from 55.20% to 68.86%, consistent performance gains across diverse benchmarks. Blind expert evaluation further confirms this, with a 66.11% preference for evolved answers. These gains extend across post-training methods, model scales, and tasks beyond the target weakly verifiable educational objectives. Resources are available at https://github.com/ZeroLoss-Lab/Agentic-Data-Evolution.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

ELBench: A Multi-Dimensional Benchmark for Education-Facing Large Language Models

Large language models are increasingly deployed in education as tutors, teaching assistants, and content generators. These roles place demands that ordinary question answering does not: a usable education-facing model is supposed to be accurate, safe under sensitive prompts, instructionally useful, and aligned with pedagogical goals at the same time. Existing benchmarks evaluate these requirements largely in isolation, so none assesses education-facing suitability as an integrated profile. We introduce ELBench, the first benchmark to evaluate all four requirements (General Capability, Safety and Trustworthiness, Basic Education, and High-Level Cultivation) on the same models under a common protocol, combining curated public sources with newly synthesized safety and cultivation data. We evaluate nine models, seven frontier general-purpose systems and two education-specialized variants, and report three findings. First, module-level profiles are more informative than a single aggregate: the top six models are statistically indistinguishable on overall score, yet their module leaders differ substantially, and safety is anti-correlated with practical teaching (r = -0.83). Second, the Chinese-developed models lead the safety module, the most discriminative in the suite; this advantage is largest on region-specific normative content and narrows, but does not vanish, on universal-harm content. Third, the two education-specialized models lead neither education module, and on High-Level Cultivation all models share a systematic blind spot: on the structured judgment task they converge on the same non-reference option, favoring pedagogical style over fit to the stated goal, so the module scores uniformly low and does not separate models. This raises, but does not resolve, whether domain post-training keeps pace with frontier systems on education tasks.

cs.CL↗