Towards Reward Modeling for AI Tutors in Math Mistake Remediation
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Process reward models for reasoning
Abstract (arXiv)
Evaluating the pedagogical quality of AI tutors remains challenging: standard NLG metrics do not determine whether responses identify mistakes, scaffold reasoning, or avoid revealing the answers. For the task of mistake remediation, we derive a hierarchy of pedagogical aspects from human pairwise preferences on MRBench, and synthesize minimally contrastive response pairs that differ along key aspects (e.g., mistake identification and location, targetedness, scaffolding, actionability, clarity, and coherence). We develop and release Bradley-Terry preference models trained on weighted-sum rankings that we automatically create from MRBench, synthetic pairs, and data combinations. Using only synthetic data, our best model reaches 0.69 pairwise accuracy on a human preference test, and combining weighted-sum data with targeted synthetic groups improves accuracy to 0.74, outperforming larger general-purpose reward models while using only a 0.5B-parameter backbone.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Process reward models for reasoning, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 9 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Mar 2026.
Builds on
9 of 34 references.
References · 9
- 2018A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scorescited by 1,790
- 2025Skywork-Reward-V2: Scaling Preference Data Curation via Human-AI Synergycited by 204
- 2023MathDial: A Dialogue Tutoring Dataset with Rich Pedagogical Properties Grounded in Math Reasoning Problemscited by 128
- 2020Dialogue Response Ranking Training with Large-Scale Human Feedback Datacited by 68
- 2024Unifying AI Tutor Evaluation: An Evaluation Taxonomy for Pedagogical Ability Assessment of LLM-Powered AI Tutorscited by 60
- 2023Bridging the Novice-Expert Gap via Models of Decision-Making: A Case Study on Remediating Math Mistakescited by 51
- 2025MathTutorBench: A Benchmark for Measuring Open-ended Pedagogical Capabilities of LLM Tutorscited by 47
- 2024Anchored Preference Optimization and Contrastive Revisions: Addressing Underspecification in Alignmentcited by 46
- 2025Findings of the BEA 2025 Shared Task on Pedagogical Ability Assessment of AI-powered Tutorscited by 16
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Towards Pedagogically Aligned LLM Tutors for Math Mistake Remediation
- 2025NeuralNexus at BEA 2025 Shared Task: Retrieval-Augmented Prompting for Mistake Identification in AI Tutors
- 2026Catching The Correct Answer Trap: Characterising AI Tutor Blind Spots When Analysing Student Reasoning
- 2025From Correctness to Comprehension: AI Agents for Personalized Error Diagnosis in Education
- 2026GRADE: Generalizable Reasoning-Aware Dialogue Evaluation for AI Tutors
- 2025RewardBench 2: Advancing Reward Model Evaluation
- 2025MathEDU: Feedback Generation on Problem-Solving Processes for Mathematical Learning Support
- 2024Improving the Validity of Automatically Generated Feedback via Reinforcement Learning