# Towards Reward Modeling for AI Tutors in Math Mistake Remediation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.24375 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.24375/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 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.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Process reward models for reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/process-reward-models-for-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scores](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.08771/) (2018)
- [Skywork-Reward-V2: Scaling Preference Data Curation via Human-AI Synergy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.01352/) (2025)
- [MathDial: A Dialogue Tutoring Dataset with Rich Pedagogical Properties Grounded in Math Reasoning Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14536/) (2023)
- [Dialogue Response Ranking Training with Large-Scale Human Feedback Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.06978/) (2020)
- [Unifying AI Tutor Evaluation: An Evaluation Taxonomy for Pedagogical Ability Assessment of LLM-Powered AI Tutors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.09416/) (2024)
- [Bridging the Novice-Expert Gap via Models of Decision-Making: A Case Study on Remediating Math Mistakes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.10648/) (2023)
- [MathTutorBench: A Benchmark for Measuring Open-ended Pedagogical Capabilities of LLM Tutors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.18940/) (2025)
- [Anchored Preference Optimization and Contrastive Revisions: Addressing Underspecification in Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.06266/) (2024)
- [Findings of the BEA 2025 Shared Task on Pedagogical Ability Assessment of AI-powered Tutors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.10579/) (2025)

## 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.