arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.03273

EVOL: Simulator-Guided Evolutionary Expert Synthesis for Deployment-Free Learning Path Recommendation

Abstract

Reinforcement learning (RL) for learning path recommendation (LPR) faces two coupled obstacles. First, the policy must commit to a sequence of L concepts without intermediate feedback, producing a combinatorial search space that grows super-exponentially with L and provides reward only at the final step. Second, expert learning paths would be the natural cure for sparse-reward RL, but they do not exist in educational data, because student logs record what learners did, not what they should have done. We address both obstacles by importing a recipe from simulator-based demonstration learning in robotics: the knowledge tracing simulator is used both to synthesize per-learner expert demonstrations through evolutionary search and to train a deployment-free policy that distills these demonstrations into a feed-forward learner. Our framework, EVOL, instantiates this pipeline with an asymmetric actor-critic where the actor commits to deployment-realistic blind planning while the critic exploits the privileged simulator state during training. Across three datasets (ASSIST15, Junyi, and EdNet; 39-189 concepts) and path lengths L = 5, 10, and 20, EVOL surpasses 8 baselines spanning heuristic, sequential, RL, graph-enhanced RL, and LLM-enhanced methods. We further compare three imitation strategies (BC, AWR, and DAPG) and show that final performance is governed by the quality of evolutionary experts rather than by the particular imitation objective.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Geonwoo Bang, Dongho Kim, Moohong Min. 2026-10-02. EVOL: Simulator-Guided Evolutionary Expert Synthesis for Deployment-Free Learning Path Recommendation. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.03273

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

AstroAgentBench: Evaluating Agentic Planning on Space Mission Planning Tasks

Recent LLM-for-Space systems address mission planning, scheduling, operations support, simulator control, and autonomy, but their evaluations use different task contracts, control settings, simulators, and success criteria. We introduce AstroAgentBench, a seven-family benchmark for executable space mission planning in the domains of scheduling, observation planning, constellation design, and relay support. For each case, an agent submits a planning artifact that is checked by an external verifier for schema, timing, geometry, resources, and mission value. Results report validity and normalized scores, with comparisons to task-specific solver references. Across five LLM agent systems and 35 held-out cases, the strongest systems approach or exceed solver-reference scores on several families, while weaker systems often fail to produce high-value valid plans and even strong systems lose quality on geometric, product-level, or design-heavy tasks. Trace analyses separate two failure points: task-contract misformulation and weak solution construction. Successful runs instead calibrate agent-written implementations against verifier feedback and adapt search to case-specific structure. Ablations show that procedure injection and memory accumulation help selectively, when they supply the missing formulation, calibration, or search support.

cs.AI↗

LPS-Bench: Benchmarking Safety Awareness of Computer-Use Agents in Long-Horizon Planning under Benign and Adversarial Scenarios

Computer-use agents (CUAs) execute multi-stage tasks through tools, where an early unsafe decision can propagate to consequential actions. Evaluating only final outcomes can miss such decisions, while constructing executable environments for new tasks can make benchmark expansion costly. We present LPS-Bench, a benchmark of long-horizon planning safety in MCP-style tool workflows under benign requests and adversarial steering. A template-guided multi-agent pipeline generates user instructions, simulated toolkits, and case-specific safety criteria, followed by human review. This design supports scalable case expansion without building a separate application environment for every test case. LPS-Bench comprises 570 cases derived from 65 scenarios across 7 task domains and 9 planning-risk types, with representative cases additionally adapted to reusable skills. An LLM-based evaluator applies case-specific criteria to complete interaction records, examining tool choices, arguments, and responses to environmental feedback throughout execution. Evaluations of 13 LLM agents reveal persistent failures in both benign and adversarial settings. Prompt-based interventions yield model-dependent gains, but substantial safety failures remain.

cs.AI↗

On the Tip of the Tongue: Why LLMs Hallucinate Answers They Can Decode

A language model can give the wrong answer even when the correct answer is decodable from its intermediate states. To study this gap between decodability and selection, we distinguish \textit{read} from \textit{write} at the first answer token. Read asks whether the gold token can be decoded from intermediate residual states under same-relation decoy controls. Write asks whether the final readout ranks that token first among content tokens. Under three different readers, with a randomized-label control, a substantial fraction of failures remain readable while another content token is selected. We explain this through the selection margin at the final readout, the difference between the answer logit and the logit of its strongest alternative, which is answer support minus alternative support, and can also be split into a context-averaged baseline linked to token frequency and an item-specific term. Setting the answer support to the level typical of successful generations is sufficient to recover first-token selection for the majority of failures in most of the models we study; the original alternative remains ahead in most remaining failures under this edit, and this outcome follows directly from the readout geometry. Removing the frequency direction alone shifts selection but rarely recovers the answer. Prompt variants of the same fact that succeed supply support that transfers to failing variants through the residual stream and through late MLP outputs, with less consistent effects through late attention. First-token recovery leaves most full answers wrong, which limits the recovery achieved by these edits and separates three things that are easily conflated, decodability, recoverability, and generation.

cs.AI↗