CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 6Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningArtificial Intelligence in EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 2 are not checked yet.

LearnLM: Improving Gemini for Learning

Open access
LearnLM Team, Modi, Abhinit, Veerubhotla, Aditya Srikanth, Rysbek, Aliya, Huber, Andrea, Wiltshire, Brett, Veprek, Brian, Gillick, Daniel, Kasenberg, Daniel, Ahmed, Derek, Jurenka, Irina, Cohan, James, She, Jennifer, Wilkowski, Julia, Alarakyia, Kaiz, McKee, Kevin R., Wang, Lisa, Kunesch, Markus, Schaekermann, Mike, Pîslar, Miruna, Joshi, Nikhil, Mahmoudieh, Parsa, Jhun, Paul, Wiltberger, Sara, Mohamed, Shakir, Agarwal, Shashank, Phal, Shubham Milind, Lee, Sun Jae, Strinopoulos, Theofilos, Ko, Wei-Jen, Wang, Amy, Anand, Ankit, Bhoopchand, Avishkar, Wild, Dan, Pandya, Divya, Bar, Filip, Graham, Garth, Winnemoeller, Holger, Nagda, Mahvish, Kolhar, Prateek, Schneider, Renee, Zhu, Shaojian, Chan, Stephanie, Yadlowsky, Steve, Sounderajah, Viknesh, Assael, Yannis·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2412.16429arXiv 2412.16429
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Today's generative AI systems are tuned to present information by default, rather than engage users in service of learning as a human tutor would. To address the wide range of potential education use cases for these systems, we reframe the challenge of injecting pedagogical behavior as one of \textit{pedagogical instruction following}, where training and evaluation examples include system-level instructions describing the specific pedagogy attributes present or desired in subsequent model turns. This framing avoids committing our models to any particular definition of pedagogy, and instead allows teachers or developers to specify desired model behavior. It also clears a path to improving Gemini models for learning -- by enabling the addition of our pedagogical data to post-training mixtures -- alongside their rapidly expanding set of capabilities. Both represent important changes from our initial tech report. We show how training with pedagogical instruction following produces a LearnLM model (available on Google AI Studio) that experts substantially prefer across a diverse set of learning scenarios, with average preference strengths of +31\% over GPT-4o, +11\% over Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and +13\% over the Gemini 1.5 Pro model on which LearnLM was based.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2412.16429

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. [1]Irina Jurenka, Markus Kunesch, Kevin R McKee, Daniel Gillick, Shaojian Zhu, Sara Wiltberger, Shubham Milind Phal, Katherine Hermann, Daniel Kasenberg, Avishkar Bhoopchand, et al. Towards responsible development of generative ai for education: An evaluation-driven approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.12687 , 2024. · arXiv
  2. [2]Daniel M Ziegler, Nisan Stiennon, Jeffrey Wu, Tom B Brown, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, Paul Christiano, and Geoffrey Irving. Fine-tuning language models from human preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.08593 , 2019. · arXiv
  3. [3]Gemini Team, Petko Georgiev, Ving Ian Lei, Ryan Burnell, Libin Bai, Anmol Gulati, Garrett Tanzer, Damien Vincent, Zhufeng Pan, Shibo Wang, et al. Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05530 , 2024. · arXiv
  4. [5]Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems , 35: 27730-27744, 2022.
  5. [6]Ethan Mollick and Lilach Mollick. Assigning ai: Seven approaches for students, with prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.10052 , 2023. · arXiv
  6. [7]Bosi Wen, Pei Ke, Xiaotao Gu, Lindong Wu, Hao Huang, Jinfeng Zhou, Wenchuang Li, Binxin Hu, Wendy Gao, Jiaxin Xu, et al. Benchmarking complex instruction-following with multiple constraints composition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.03978 , 2024. · arXiv
  7. [8]Jeffrey Zhou, Tianjian Lu, Swaroop Mishra, Siddhartha Brahma, Sujoy Basu, Yi Luan, Denny Zhou, and Le Hou. Instruction-following evaluation for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07911 , 2023. · arXiv
  8. [9]Yiwei Qin, Kaiqiang Song, Yebowen Hu, Wenlin Yao, Sangwoo Cho, Xiaoyang Wang, Xuansheng Wu, Fei Liu, Pengfei Liu, and Dong Yu. Infobench: Evaluating instruction following ability in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.03601 , 2024. · arXiv
  9. [10]Lujain Ibrahim, Saffron Huang, Lama Ahmad, and Markus Anderljung. Beyond static ai evaluations: advancing human interaction evaluations for llm harms and risks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10632 , 2024. · arXiv
  10. [14]Fred D Davis. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS quarterly , 1989.
  11. [15]Susan T Fiske, Amy JC Cuddy, and Peter Glick. Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in cognitive sciences , 11(2):77-83, 2007.
  12. [17]Team Gemini, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Yonghui Wu, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, et al. Gemini: A family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805 , 2023. · arXiv
  13. [18]Paul A Kirschner and Carl Hendrick. How learning happens: Seminal works in educational psychology and what they mean in practice . Routledge, 2020.
  14. [21]Hamsa Bastani, Osbert Bastani, Alp Sungu, Haosen Ge, Ozge Kabakcı, and Rei Mariman. Generative ai can harm learning. Available at SSRN , 4895486, 2024.
  15. [24]Sanjay V Desai, Jesse Burk-Rafel, Kimberly D Lomis, Kelly Caverzagie, Judee Richardson, Celia Laird O'Brien, John Andrews, Kevin Heckman, David Henderson, Charles G Prober, et al. Precision education: the future of lifelong learning in medicine. Academic Medicine , pages 10-1097, 2023.
  16. [25]Kevin R McKee, Xuechunzi Bai, and Susan T Fiske. Warmth and competence in human-agent cooperation. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems , 38(1):23, 2024.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
LearnLM Team, Modi, A., Veerubhotla, A. S., Rysbek, A., Huber, A., Wiltshire, B., Veprek, B., Gillick, D., Kasenberg, D., Ahmed, D., Jurenka, I., Cohan, J., She, J., Wilkowski, J., Alarakyia, K., McKee, K. R., Wang, L., Kunesch, M., Schaekermann, M., Pîslar, M., Joshi, N., Mahmoudieh, P., Jhun, P., Wiltberger, S., Mohamed, S., Agarwal, S., Phal, S. M., Lee, S. J., Strinopoulos, T., Ko, W.-J., Wang, A., Anand, A., Bhoopchand, A., Wild, D., Pandya, D., Bar, F., Graham, G., Winnemoeller, H., Nagda, M., Kolhar, P., Schneider, R., Zhu, S., Chan, S., Yadlowsky, S., Sounderajah, V., & Assael, Y.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2412.16429
arXiv
2412.16429
OpenAlex
W4405766242
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
pedagogical behavior, large language models, teacher preferences, AI tutors, pedagogy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review