We study the reasoning behavior of large language models (LLMs) under limited computation budgets. In such settings, producing useful partial solutions quickly is often more practical than exhaustive reasoning, which incurs high inference costs. Many real-world tasks, such as trip planning, require models to deliver the best possible output within a fixed reasoning budget. We introduce an anytime reasoning framework and the Anytime Index, a metric that quantifies how effectively solution quality improves as reasoning tokens increase. To further enhance efficiency, we propose an inference-time self-improvement method using LLM-synthesized preference data, where models learn from their own reasoning comparisons to produce better intermediate solutions. Experiments on NaturalPlan (Trip), AIME, and GPQA datasets show consistent gains across Grok-3, GPT-oss, GPT-4.1/4o, and LLaMA models, improving both reasoning quality and efficiency under budget constraints.

Virtual Teaching Assistants (VTAs) can reduce the workload of teaching teams in Asynchronous Learning Environments (ALEs) where timely, personalized support is often limited. As VTA systems grow more capable, rigorous and pedagogically sound evaluation becomes essential. Existing assessments often rely on surface-level metrics and lack sufficient grounding in educational theory, making it difficult to meaningfully compare the pedagogical effectiveness of VTA systems. To bridge this gap, we propose a pedagogically-oriented evaluation framework that is rooted in learning sciences and tailored to asynchronous forum discussions, a common VTA deployment context in ALE. We construct classifiers using expert annotations of VTA responses on a diverse set of forum posts. We evaluate the effectiveness of our classifiers, identifying approaches that improve accuracy as well as challenges that hinder generalization. Our work establishes a foundation for theory-driven evaluation of VTA systems, paving the way for more pedagogically effective AI in education.

As large language models achieve impressive scores on traditional benchmarks, an increasing number of researchers are becoming concerned about benchmark data leakage during pre-training, commonly known as the data contamination problem. To ensure fair evaluation, recent benchmarks release only the training and validation sets, keeping the test set labels closed-source. They require anyone wishing to evaluate his language model to submit the model’s predictions for centralized processing and then publish the model’s result on their leaderboard. However, this submission process is inefficient and prevents effective error analysis. To address this issue, we propose to variabilize benchmarks and evaluate language models dynamically. Specifically, we extract variables from each test case and define a value range for each variable. For each evaluation, we sample new values from these value ranges to create unique test cases, thus ensuring a fresh evaluation each time. We applied this variable perturbation method to four datasets: GSM8K, ARC, CommonsenseQA, and TruthfulQA, which cover mathematical generation and multiple-choice tasks. Our experimental results demonstrate that this approach provides a more accurate assessment of the true capabilities of language models, effectively mitigating the contamination problem.

Lexical Substitution discovers appropriate substitutes for a given target word in a context sentence. However, the task fails to consider substitutes that are of equal or higher proficiency than the target, an aspect that could be beneficial for language learners looking to improve their writing. To bridge this gap, we propose a new task — language proficiency-oriented lexical substitution. We also introduce ProLex, a novel benchmark designed to assess systems’ ability to generate not only appropriate substitutes but also substitutes that demonstrate better language proficiency. Besides the benchmark, we propose models that can automatically perform the new task. We show that our best model, a Llama2-13B model fine-tuned with task-specific synthetic data, outperforms ChatGPT by an average of 3.2% in F-score and achieves comparable results with GPT-4 on ProLex.

Coherence in writing, an aspect that L2 English learners often struggle with, is crucial in assessing L2 English writing. Existing automated writing evaluation systems primarily use basic surface linguistic features to detect coherence in writing. However, little effort has been made to correct the detected incoherence, which could significantly benefit L2 language learners seeking to improve their writing. To bridge this gap, we introduce DECOR, a novel benchmark that includes expert annotations for detecting incoherence in L2 English writing, identifying the underlying reasons, and rewriting the incoherent sentences. To our knowledge, DECOR is the first coherence assessment dataset specifically designed for improving L2 English writing, featuring pairs of original incoherent sentences alongside their expert-rewritten counterparts. Additionally, we fine-tuned models to automatically detect and rewrite incoherence in student essays. We find that incorporating specific reasons for incoherence during fine-tuning consistently improves the quality of the rewrites, achieving a level that is favored in both automatic and human evaluations.