Austria

Despite recent advances in AI detection methods, their practical application, especially in education, remains limited. Educators need functional tools pointing to AI indicators within texts, rather than merely estimating whether AI was used. 
GPTZero&#39;s new AI Vocabulary feature, which highlights parts of a text likely to be AI-generated based on frequent words and phrases from LLM-generated texts, offers a potential solution. However, its effectiveness has not yet been empirically validated.
In this study, we examine whether GPTZero&#39;s AI Vocabulary can effectively distinguish between LLM-generated and student-written essays. We analyze the AI Vocabulary lists published from October 2024 to March 2025 and evaluate them on a subset of the Ghostbuster dataset, which includes student and LLM essays. We train multiple Bag-of-Words classifiers using GPTZero&#39;s AI Vocabulary terms as features and examine their individual contributions to classification.
Our findings show that simply checking for the presence, not the frequency, of specific AI terms yields the best results, particularly with ChatGPT-generated essays. However, performance drops to near-random when applied to Claude-generated essays, indicating that GPTZero&#39;s AI Vocabulary may not generalize well to texts generated by LLMs other than ChatGPT. Additionally, all classifiers based on GPTZero&#39;s AI Vocabulary significantly underperform compared to Bag-of-Words classifiers trained directly on the full dataset vocabulary. These findings suggest that fixed vocabularies based solely on lexical features, despite their interpretability, have limited effectiveness across different LLMs and educational writing contexts.

ACL 2025

Can GPTZero&#39;s AI Vocabulary Distinguish Between LLM-Generated and Student-Written Essays?

### Welcome to IJCNLP-AACL 2025! 
 It is a great honor to host this joint conference in Mumbai, India, from December 20 to 24, 2025. The joint conferences of IJCNLP and AACL are organized with alternating leadership in the Asia-Pacific region. The event is run by the Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing (AFNLP) in odd years, and by AACL in even years, while it is organized solely by ACL when the annual ACL meeting is held in the region. This year, the conference is primarily organized by AFNLP. 
*Kentaro Inui
MBZUAI, UAE
General Chair, IJCNLP-AACL 2025* 
Read full message and download the Conference Handbook [**here**](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UTwxkAqSqI-GAoJC3wE1zZt5VP1Y8GX0/view?usp=sharing).

IJCNLP-AACL 2025

The 14th IJCNLP & 4th AACL will be held in Mumbai, India from December 20th to December 24th, 2025.

Despite recent advances in AI detection methods, their practical application, especially in education, remains limited. Educators need functional tools pointing to AI indicators within texts, rather than merely estimating whether AI was used. 
GPTZero's new AI Vocabulary feature, which highlights parts of a text likely to be AI-generated based on frequent words and phrases from LLM-generated texts, offers a potential solution. However, its effectiveness has not yet been empirically validated.
In this study, we examine whether GPTZero's AI Vocabulary can effectively distinguish between LLM-generated and student-written essays. We analyze the AI Vocabulary lists published from October 2024 to March 2025 and evaluate them on a subset of the Ghostbuster dataset, which includes student and LLM essays. We train multiple Bag-of-Words classifiers using GPTZero's AI Vocabulary terms as features and examine their individual contributions to classification.
Our findings show that simply checking for the presence, not the frequency, of specific AI terms yields the best results, particularly with ChatGPT-generated essays. However, performance drops to near-random when applied to Claude-generated essays, indicating that GPTZero's AI Vocabulary may not generalize well to texts generated by LLMs other than ChatGPT. Additionally, all classifiers based on GPTZero's AI Vocabulary significantly underperform compared to Bag-of-Words classifiers trained directly on the full dataset vocabulary. These findings suggest that fixed vocabularies based solely on lexical features, despite their interpretability, have limited effectiveness across different LLMs and educational writing contexts.

Can GPTZero's AI Vocabulary Distinguish Between LLM-Generated and Student-Written Essays?

workshop paper

### Welcome to The 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2025)

Message from the General Chair: 
*It is my great pleasure and honor to welcome you to the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2025), held in beautiful Vienna, Austria, from July 27 to August 1, 2025. ACL2025continues our field’s tradition of excellence in scholarship, innovation, and inclusivity, and I am deeply grateful to the many volunteers who have worked tirelessly to bring this event to life.* 
[Read more](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GI_hvOpjswAuYdUTromfeDiPpCcqidwg/view?usp=sharing)

To access this event page, you need to log in with the **email address you registered with**. Access credentials will be sent to your email from Underline - subject line "Welcome to ACL 2025". Please be sure to check your spam email folder if you do not see an email confirmation right away.

Please log in

To access this event page, you need to log in with the **email address you registered with**. 

Welcome to The 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2025)

We present a case study on building task-specific models for grammatical error correction and explanation generation tailored to learners of Estonian. Our approach handles whole paragraphs instead of sentences and leverages prompting proprietary large language models for generating synthetic training data, addressing the limited availability of error correction data and the complete absence of correction justification/explanation data in Estonian. We describe the chosen approach and pipeline and provide technical details for the experimental part. The final outcome is a set of open-weight models, which are released with a permissive license along with the generated synthetic error correction and explanation data.

Paragraph-level Error Correction and Explanation Generation: Case Study for Estonian

Communicative practice is critical for second language development, yet learners often lack targeted, engaging opportunities to use new grammar structures. While large language models (LLMs) can offer coherent interactions, they are not inherently aligned with pedagogical goals or proficiency levels. In this paper, we explore how LLMs can be integrated into a structured framework for contextually-constrained, grammar-focused interaction, building on an existing goal-oriented dialogue system. Through controlled simulations, we evaluate five LLMs across 75 A2-level tasks under two conditions: (i) grammar-targeted, task-anchored prompting and (ii) the addition of a lightweight post-generation validation pipeline using a grammar annotator.
Our findings show that template-based prompting alone substantially increases target-form coverage up to 91.4% for LLaMA 3.1-70B-Instruct, while reducing overly advanced grammar usage. The validation pipeline provides an additional boost in form-focused tasks, raising coverage to 96.3% without significantly degrading appropriateness.

A Framework for Proficiency-Aligned Grammar Practice in LLM-Based Dialogue Systems

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as proxy students in the development of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITSs) and in piloting test questions. However, to what extent these proxy students accurately emulate the behavior and characteristics of real students remains an open question. To investigate this, we collected a dataset of 489 items from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), covering mathematics and reading comprehension in grades 4, 8, and 12. We then apply an Item Response Theory (IRT) model to position 11 diverse and state-of-the-art LLMs on the same ability scale as real student populations. Our findings reveal that, without guidance, strong general-purpose models consistently outperform the average student at every grade, while weaker or domain-mismatched models may align incidentally. Using grade-enforcement prompts changes models' performance, but whether they align with the average grade-level student remains highly model- and prompt-specific: no evaluated model–prompt pair fits the bill across subjects and grades, underscoring the need for new training and evaluation strategies. We conclude by providing guidelines for the selection of viable proxies based on our findings. All related code and data have been made available (https://github.com/kvadityasrivatsa/IRT-for-LLMs-as-Students).

Can LLMs Reliably Simulate Real Students' Abilities in Mathematics and Reading Comprehension?

This shared task has aimed to assess pedagogical abilities of AI tutors powered by large language models (LLMs), focusing on evaluating the quality of tutor responses aimed at student's mistake remediation within educational dialogues. The task consisted of five tracks designed to automatically evaluate the AI tutor's performance across key dimensions of mistake identification, precise location of the mistake, providing guidance, and feedback actionability, grounded in learning science principles that define good and effective tutor responses, as well as the track focusing on detection of the tutor identity. The task attracted over 50 international teams across all tracks. The submitted models were evaluated against gold-standard human annotations, and the results, while promising, show that there is still significant room for improvement in this domain: the best results for the four pedagogical ability assessment tracks range between macro F1 scores of 58.34 (for providing guidance) and 71.81 (for mistake identification) on three-class problems, with the best F1 score in the tutor identification track reaching 96.98 on a 9-class task. In this paper, we overview the main findings of the shared task, discuss the approaches taken by the teams, and analyze their performance. All resources associated with this task are made publicly available to support future
research in this critical domain (https://github.com/kaushal0494/UnifyingAITutorEvaluation/tree/main/BEA_Shared_Task_2025_Datasets).

Findings of the BEA 2025 Shared Task on Pedagogical Ability Assessment of AI-powered Tutors

The growing use of large language models (LLMs) for AI-powered tutors in education highlights the need for reliable evaluation of their pedagogical abilities. In this work, we propose a reasoning-based evaluation methodology that leverages pedagogical domain knowledge to assess LLM-generated feedback in mathematical dialogues while providing insights into why a particular evaluation is given. We design structured prompts to invoke pedagogically-informed reasoning from LLMs and compare base model candidates selected for their strengths in reasoning, mathematics, and overall instruction-following. We employ Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), a reinforcement learning method known to improve reasoning performance, to train models to perform evaluation in four pedagogically motivated dimensions, Mistake Identification, Mistake Location, Providing Guidance, and Actionability. Experimental results show that our GRPO-based models consistently outperform the base model and GPT-4.1, and surpass models trained using supervised fine-tuning in three out of four dimensions. Notably, our method achieved top-ranked performance in Actionability and competitive performance in two other dimensions in the BEA 2025 Shared Task under the team name bea-jh, underscoring the value of generating pedagogically grounded rationales for improving the quality of educational feedback evaluation.

bea-jh at BEA 2025 Shared Task: Evaluating AI-powered Tutors through Pedagogically-Informed Reasoning

This paper describes our approaches for the BEA-2025 Shared Task on assessing pedagogical ability and attributing tutor identities in AI-powered tutoring systems. We explored three methodological paradigms: in-context learning (ICL), supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). Results indicate clear methodological strengths: SFT is highly effective for structured classification tasks such as mistake identification and feedback actionability, while ICL with advanced prompting excels at open-ended tasks involving mistake localization and instructional guidance. Additionally, fine-tuned models demonstrated strong performance in identifying tutor authorship. Our findings highlight the importance of aligning methodological strategy and task structure, providing insights toward more effective evaluations of educational AI systems.

BLCU-ICALL at BEA 2025 Shared Task: Multi-Strategy Evaluation of AI Tutors

The rapid adoption of AI in educational technology is changing learning settings, making the thorough evaluation of AI tutor pedagogical performance is quite important for promoting student success. This paper describes our solution for the BEA 2025 Shared Task on Pedagogical Ability Assessment of AI-powered tutors, which assesses tutor replies over several pedagogical dimensions. We developed transformer-based approaches for five diverse tracks: mistake identification, mistake location, providing guidance, actionability, and tutor identity prediction using the MRBench dataset of mathematical dialogues. We evaluated several pre-trained models including DeBERTa-V3, RoBERTa-Large, SciBERT, and EduBERT. Our approach addressed class imbalance problems by incorporating strategic fine-tuning with weighted loss functions. The findings show that, for all tracks, DeBERTa architectures have higher performances than the others, and our models have obtained in the competitive positions, including 9th of Tutor Identity (Exact F1 of 0.8621), 16th of Actionability (Exact F1 of 0.6284), 19th of Providing Guidance (Exact F1 of 0.4933), 20th of Mistake Identification (Exact F1 of 0.6617) and 22nd of Mistake Location (Exact F1 of 0.4935). The difference in performance over tracks highlights the difficulty of automatic pedagogical evaluation, especially for tasks whose solutions require a deep understanding of educational contexts. This work contributes to ongoing efforts to develop robust automated tools for assessing.

SmolLab_SEU at BEA 2025 Shared Task: A Transformer-Based Framework for Multi-Track Pedagogical Evaluation of AI-Powered Tutors

This paper presents automatic evaluation systems for assessing the pedagogical capabilities of LLM-based AI tutors. Drawing from a shared task, our systems specifically target four key dimensions of tutor responses: Mistake Identification, Mistake Location, Providing Guidance, and Actionability. These dimensions capture the educational quality of responses from multiple perspectives, including the ability to detect student mistakes, accurately identify error locations, provide effective instructional guidance, and offer actionable feedback. We propose GPT-4.1-based automatic evaluation systems, leveraging their strong capabilities in comprehending diverse linguistic expressions and complex conversational contexts to address the detailed evaluation criteria across these dimensions. Our systems were quantitatively evaluated based on the official criteria of each track. In the Mistake Location track, our evaluation systems achieved an Exact macro F1 score of 58.80\% (ranked in the top 3), and in the Providing Guidance track, they achieved 56.06\% (ranked in the top 5). While the systems showed mid-range performance in the remaining tracks, the overall results demonstrate that our proposed automatic evaluation systems can effectively assess the quality of tutor responses, highlighting their potential for evaluating AI tutor effectiveness.

K-NLPers at BEA 2025 Shared Task: Evaluating the Quality of AI Tutor Responses with GPT-4.1

As AI's presence in educational environments grows, it becomes critical to evaluate how its feedback may impact students' learning processes. Pedagogical theory, with decades of effort into understanding how human instructors give good-quality feedback to students, may provide a rich source of insight into feedback automation. In this paper, we propose a novel architecture based on pedagogical-theory feature extraction from the conversation history and tutor response to predict pedagogical guidance on MRBench. Such features are based on Brookhart's canonical work in pedagogical theory, and extracted by prompting the language model LearnLM. The features are then used to train a random-forest classifier to predict the ‘providing guidance' dimension of the MRBench dataset. Our approach ranked 8\textsuperscript{th} in the dimension's leaderboard with a test Macro F1-score of ~0.54. Our work provides some evidence in support of using pedagogical theory qualitative factors treated separately to provide clearer guidelines on how to improve low-scoring intelligent tutoring systems. Finally, we observed several inconsistencies between pedagogical theory and MRBench's inherent relaxation of the tutoring problem implied in evaluating on a single-conversation basis, calling for the development of more elaborate measures which consider student profiles to serve as true heuristics of AI tutors' usefulness.

IALab UC at BEA 2025 Shared Task: LLM-Powered Expert Pedagogical Feature Extraction

We present MSA-MathEval, our submission to the BEA 2025 Shared Task on evaluating AI tutor responses across four instructional dimensions: Mistake Identification, Mistake Location, Providing Guidance, and Actionability. Our approach uses a unified training pipeline to fine-tune a single instruction-tuned language model across all tracks, without any task-specific architectural changes. To improve prediction reliability, we introduce a disagreement-aware ensemble inference strategy that enhances coverage of minority labels. Our system achieves strong performance across all tracks, ranking 1st in Providing Guidance, 3rd in Actionability, and 4th in both Mistake Identification and Mistake Location. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of scalable instruction tuning and disagreement-driven modeling for robust, multi-dimensional evaluation of LLMs as educational tutors.

Downloads

Next from ACL 2025

Paragraph-level Error Correction and Explanation Generation: Case Study for Estonian

Similar lecture

Fine-Grained Detection of AI-Generated Text Using Sentence-Level Segmentation

.css-70qvj9{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}Downloads

Next from ACL 2025

Paragraph-level Error Correction and Explanation Generation: Case Study for Estonian

Similar lecture

Fine-Grained Detection of AI-Generated Text Using Sentence-Level Segmentation

Downloads