Simulating Students or Sycophantic Problem Solving? On Misconception Faithfulness of LLM Simulators
Authors: Heejin Do, Shashank Sonkar, Mrinmaya Sachan
Summary
arXiv:2605. 12748v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can fluently generate student-like responses, making them attractive as simulated students for training and evaluating AI tutors and human educators.
Relevance
Read next because Simulating Students or Sycophantic Problem Solving? On Misconception Faithfulness of LLM Simulators overlaps with clean result "Language-mismatch LoRA SFT on Qwen2.5-7B leaks the trained completion language into bystander directives the model was never trained on, absent under same-language SFT (LOW confidence)", clean result "Coupling evil personas with wrong answers fails to protect Qwen2.5-7B from EM-induced alignment collapse — and the apparent capability ordering across coupling conditions is mostly eval contamination (LOW confidence)", clean result "Only continuous soft prefixes hit both EM axes at once on Qwen-2.5-7B-Instruct: discrete prompt searches split between the alignment objective and the distributional objective, and both discretizations of the soft prefix collapse (MODERATE confidence)". Matching terms: rect, under, correct, wrong, eval, training, line, rate. Source: arxiv cs.CL (NLP).
Threat model
Potential threat/caveat for clean result "Language-mismatch LoRA SFT on Qwen2.5-7B leaks the trained completion language into bystander directives the model was never trained on, absent under same-language SFT (LOW confidence)": this item discusses failure.
Abstract
arXiv:2605.12748v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can fluently generate student-like responses, making them attractive as simulated students for training and evaluating AI tutors and human educators. Yet such simulators are typically evaluated by output similarity to real students, not by whether they behave like students with coherent misconceptions during interaction. We introduce a controlled framework for evaluating misconception faithfulness, whether a simulator maintains a misconception-driven belief state and updates selectively when feedback addresses the underlying misconception. Central to our framework is a misconception-contrastive feedback protocol that compares targeted feedback against two controls: misaligned feedback (targeting a different but plausible misconception) and generic feedback (only identifying answer is wrong). We propose Selective Flip Score (SFS), which quantifies how much more often a simulator flips its answer under targeted feedback than under contrastive controls. Across seven LLMs (4B-120B), multiple datasets, and prompting strategies, simulators exhibit near-zero SFS, correcting their answers at similarly high rates regardless of feedback relevance. Further analyses reveal a sycophantic failure mode: models behave less like students with misconceptions but more like problem-solvers who treat any corrective signal as a cue to abandon the simulated belief and re-solve from internal knowledge. To address this, we develop a post-training pipeline spanning supervised fine-tuning (SFT), preference optimization, and reinforcement learning (RL) with an SFS-aligned reward; SFT yields notable gains up to +0.56, and SFS-aligned RL provides more consistent improvements than preference optimization. Our results establish misconception faithfulness as a challenging yet trainable property, motivating a shift from static output matching toward interactive, belief-aware student modeling.