educational software teams

Abstract: Large language models can answer the same question in different styles, but users' preferred styles are hidden and vary across users and questions. We study inference-time personalization through online selection from a fixed set of prompts, each representing a persona. Users arrive sequentially, each asks a short sequence of questions, and the system displays two responses per question and observes one pairwise choice. We formulate this interaction as a variant of the contextual dueling bandit problem in which the learner starts without preference data, adapts within each session, and exploits information shared across users. The objective is to minimize cumulative strong regret, summing the utility gaps of both displayed responses relative to the user's best response among the available options. We make two contributions. First, we introduce the problem and release a reproducible preference benchmark and dataset built around a tutoring case study, containing educational questions, LLM-generated answers in six teaching styles, and pairwise judgments from LLM-simulated students with hidden preference profiles. We fit Bradley-Terry models to these judgments to obtain reference utilities for regret evaluation. Second, we propose a baseline that learns a mixture prior over users from completed sessions and adapts to each new user within the session. On students and topics never used in development, it removes 44-48% of random pairs' excess regret and achieves over half the performance of a per-user linear oracle fitted in hindsight. We release code, prompts, and the benchmark.

Abstract: We investigate the problem of role-capability leakage (RCL), in which a role-prompted reasoning model generates convincing in-role text while continuing to exhibit capabilities on benchmarks that exceed those implied by the assigned role. For example, when a model is prompted to assume the role of a kindergarten student, one might expect its performance on a mathematics benchmark to reflect kindergarten-level ability rather than expert-level proficiency in solving calculus problems. We introduce RoleCapBench, a curriculum-grounded benchmark for evaluating RCL across six educational roles and four assessment levels spanning elementary school through A-level, and use it to evaluate three open-weight reasoning models. We find that although the models can generate stylistically convincing in-role responses, they consistently fail to align their underlying capabilities with their assigned roles. Naive role prompting yields strong role-voice scores of 1.218--1.389 while retaining above-role accuracy of 0.811--0.898. RCL persists across a range of prompting conditions, including prompts that explicitly instruct the model to match the role's capability level. To mitigate this problem, we propose Injection, an inference-time intervention that combines explicit, role-specific capability guidelines with a guiding prefilled response prefix. Injection improves role-capability alignment across models, reducing above-role accuracy by up to 0.562 while preserving in-role accuracy with a marginal drop of less than 0.058 across most models. All artifacts, including scripts and evaluation data, will be released upon acceptance.