Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish: On the Extended Reading Articles Generation with LLMs

An-Zi Yen; Yow-Fu Liou; Yu-Chien Tang

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 16 references

Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish: On the Extended Reading Articles Generation with LLMs

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a three-stage LLM pipeline that turns TED-Ed video transcripts into extended reading articles, retrieves related lessons by semantic similarity, and rewrites the article to weave the recommended links into the text.

desk verdict Honest pilot with a novel task framing, but the paper's own ablation contradicts the abstract's 'accurate course suggestions' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15013 v1 pith:L2GELRMP submitted 2025-04-21 cs.CL

Yow-Fu Liou , Yu-Chien Tang , An-Zi Yen This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CL

keywords ExtendedreadingarticlesgenerationCourserecommendationLargelanguagemodelsTED-EdDigDeeperSemanticsimilarityrankingEducationalmaterialLLMreranking

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that a three-stage LLM pipeline can automate the creation of extended reading materials for educational videos. Working from TED-Ed lessons, it first generates a stylistically rich 'Dig Deeper' draft from a video transcript, then ranks candidate courses from the 2,930-lesson catalog using semantic similarity and an LLM judge, and finally rewrites the article so the recommended courses' keywords appear naturally in the text. The authors evaluate the output with hit rate, BERTScore, BM25, cosine similarity, and LLM-judged coherence, arguing that the generated articles are relevant and well structured while offering extra learning resources. If the claim holds, teachers and self-studying students would gain a practical tool for turning any video lesson into a connected web of supplementary reading and follow-up courses.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a three-stage generation-recommendation loop. Stage 1's Dig Deeper Generator is an LLM prompt that expands a video transcript into a stylistically enriched article containing historical facts, cultural examples, and anecdotes. Stage 2 uses a sentence transformer to score all 2,930 catalog lessons against that draft, keeps the top 100 candidates, and an LLM-based reranker evaluates each candidate for keyword overlap, overall topic relevance, and contextual alignment of shared keywords. Stage 3's Final Dig Deeper Generator locates the keywords of accepted lessons inside the draft and rewrites the article so the recommended lessons read as organic extensions of the discussion rather than appended links.

What would settle it

A controlled run that holds all stages fixed except the retrieval query would settle the recommendation claim: if the original transcript outranks the generated draft as a query on the same 2,930-lesson catalog, the draft-before-retrieval ordering does not serve course-suggestion accuracy, and the paper's own ablation already yields this comparison with 0.515 versus 0.320.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using TED-Ed's Dig Deeper sections as the testbed, the authors' central claim is that LLMs can generate extended reading articles that enrich a video transcript with historical facts, cultural examples, and anecdotes, and can simultaneously recommend on-site courses that genuinely connect to the article. The pipeline couples generation with recommendation: the initial draft acts both as reading material and as the retrieval query, an LLM-based reranker checks keyword overlap, overall relevance, and contextual alignment, and the final rewrite stitches the recommended lessons into the article by their keyword positions. The authors report that the full system with Llama-3.1-405b attains a hit rate of 0.320, cosine similarity of 0.476, and an LLM coherence score of 8.469, and they observe in their ablation that dropping the initial draft raises hit rate to 0.515 while lowering coherence; they interpret this as a trade-off in which the draft's exploratory diversity buys narrative quality. Their stated contribution is a working demonstration that automated generation plus recommendation can bridge video content, extended articles, and follow-up courses.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline assumes that expanding the transcript into an exploratory, stylized draft before retrieval improves course-suggestion accuracy; the paper's own ablation in Section 5.1 reports a hit rate of 0.515 without that draft versus 0.320 with it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A teacher can feed any video transcript into the pipeline and receive a first-draft extended reading article with ranked course suggestions, reducing the manual work of curating supplementary materials.
Because the recommendation stage searches the full TED-Ed lesson database, generated articles can point students to lessons beyond the hand-picked links in the original Dig Deeper sections, expanding the pool of follow-up resources.
The three-way structural classification of Dig Deeper content (links-only, text-heavy, paragraph discussions with links) gives a target template for future generators that want to reproduce TED-Ed's dominant style.
The reported coherence scores suggest the exploratory draft step improves narrative structure, so systems that prioritize readability can still benefit from the two-stage generation even when it does not maximize hit rate.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper's claims, the retrieval query and the output text need not come from the same representation: using the original transcript for candidate retrieval while using the generated draft only for stylistic expansion could preserve the higher hit rate and the coherence gain, and this decoupling is directly testable on the authors' dataset.
The hit-rate metric compares automatically generated links against TED-Ed's original hand-chosen links, but those original links are only one valid answer set; a human relevance study could reveal that some generated recommendations are useful even when they do not overlap TED-Ed's choices.
The sentence-transformer threshold and the choice of top 100 candidates are unanalyzed hyperparameters, and varying them would show how much final quality comes from retrieval coverage versus LLM reranking.
The three-category taxonomy of Dig Deeper articles could be turned into a controllable generation objective: first classify the target style, then prompt the generator to match that structural type.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The thing to know: this is a transparent pilot, and the transparency is its best quality. The task — generating TED-Ed extended reading articles with integrated course recommendations — is new as a framing, though every component is standard. The category analysis (three types of Dig Deeper content) is genuinely useful and gives teachers and researchers concrete distinctions to work with. The paper also reports its own worst result without burying it: when the Dig Deeper generator is removed and retrieval runs off the transcript directly, hit rate jumps from 0.320 to 0.515. That's a direct contradiction to the abstract's claim of 'accurate course suggestions.' The authors acknowledge the gap and gesture at 'diversity brought by LLMs,' but they don't reconcile it with their headline. That's the load-bearing flaw.

Everything else is proportionate. The coherence score comes from an unvalidated LLM judge, with no human evaluation and no error bars. BERTScore, BM25, and cosine similarity measure text similarity, not whether the recommendation is correct. No code or data is released, so the numbers are not independently checkable. The 0.195 hit-rate gap could in principle be noise, but as reported it's a counterexample to the main claim.

What the paper does well: it is honest, the experimental setup is simple enough to follow, and the ablations are informative even when they hurt the story. The authors clearly know the result is problematic and give a plausible, testable hypothesis. That's more than many workshop papers do.

Who is this for? Researchers in educational NLP and anyone working on LLM-as-judge or recommender-generation pipelines. The paper is a useful negative result for people designing similar systems: don't generate a draft article before retrieval unless you can show it doesn't hurt hit rate. But as a contribution that validates a method, it doesn't support the abstract as written.

Recommendation: this deserves a serious referee — a real editor should send it to review, not desk-reject. But it should be a conditional reject or major-revision verdict until the abstract is aligned with the data and either the hit-rate gap is closed or the claim is scoped down. Human evaluation of coherence would also be necessary before I'd accept it. I would not cite it in my own work in the next year, though I might bring it to a reading group to talk about evaluation failure modes.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a three-stage pipeline for TED-Ed-style extended reading articles: an LLM generates an initial Dig Deeper article from a video transcript, a sentence-transformer plus LLM reranker recommends related on-site TED-Ed lessons, and a final LLM rewrite integrates the recommendations. The authors evaluate the pipeline with Hit Rate, BERTScore, BM25, cosine similarity, and an LLM-based coherence score, and they report ablations and a category-level analysis. The abstract claims that the model produces 'high-quality content and accurate course suggestions.' The central positive claim, however, is not supported by the reported experiments: the full pipeline's Hit Rate is lower than that of the ablated variant that skips the initial article generation.

Significance. If the claims were supported, the work would be a useful contribution to automated educational content creation and course recommendation. The evaluation has a sound non-circular anchor: Hit Rate is grounded in external, human-curated TED-Ed Dig Deeper links, and the relevance metrics compare against the original Dig Deeper text. The paper is best read as a pilot study of a generation-plus-recommendation pipeline. However, the reported numbers contradict the paper's own headline claim, and the content-quality evaluation rests on an unvalidated LLM judge. The dataset construction and the transparency of the evaluation are also below what a journal would require. The work has a potentially useful negative finding, but that finding is not the framing the authors chose.

major comments (4)

[§5.1, Table 2] The ablation results directly contradict the abstract's claim of 'accurate course suggestions.' The full pipeline ('Ours') achieves Hit Rate 0.320, while removing the Dig Deeper Generator and recommending directly from the transcript achieves 0.515. Because Hit Rate is defined in the paper as the match between recommended links and the original TED-Ed Dig Deeper links, it is the only metric that directly tests whether the suggested courses are correct. The 0.195 gap shows that the generation stage degrades recommendation accuracy by about 38% rather than improving it. The hypothesis about 'diversity brought by LLMs' may explain the trade-off, but it does not reconcile the number with the abstract. The paper must either reframe its central contribution as a trade-off analysis or provide statistical evidence, such as confidence intervals, that the gap is not real.
[§5, Structural Quality of Generated Articles] The coherence score is computed by an LLM judge with no validation against human ratings, no inter-annotator agreement, and no description of the prompt or the scoring model. This metric is the sole support for the claim that the pipeline produces 'high-quality content' and that the initial generation step 'enhances the structural quality of the final outputs.' Without a human evaluation on a sample of the generated articles, or at least a calibration of the LLM judge against human judgments, the coherence results cannot be interpreted as evidence of quality. The paper should either add a human study or explicitly present the coherence scores as exploratory only.
[§5.1, Table 3 and Dataset] No test-set size is reported. The Dataset section states that 2,930 TED-Ed lessons serve as the database, but it does not state how many lessons were used for evaluation or how many fall into each of the three categories in the categorized analysis. Table 3 compares 'Ours' with three categories without any sample size, variance, or confidence interval. Consequently, claims such as 'this type receives relatively low scores' and the third contribution of 'quantitative analyses' are not supported. The authors should report the number of test examples per category and the dispersion of each metric.
[§5.1, Ablation Studies] The statement that removing the Dig Deeper Generator 'increased the hit rate significantly' uses 'significantly' without any statistical test. Tables 1 and 2 report point estimates only, and the value 0.320 appears for both 'Ours' and Llama-3.1-405b, suggesting that 'Ours' is the Llama pipeline; this should be stated explicitly. Without standard deviations or significance tests across repeated runs, or bootstrap intervals, the reader cannot assess whether any of the differences, including the 0.515 versus 0.320 gap, are real. Given that the central claim depends on interpreting that gap, this is a load-bearing omission.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The sentence 'Our experimental analysis highlight the nuanced differences' should read 'highlights.'
[Dataset] Specify exactly how many TED-Ed lessons have on-site Dig Deeper recommendations and are used in the evaluation; the current text gives only the total database size of 2,930.
[§4.2] Name the sentence-transformer model and state the value of top_k explicitly (the text says top 100 but the model is not identified); provide the LLM prompts used for ranking and rewriting to enable reproducibility.
[Table 3] Clarify whether 'Ours' is the generated-article row and whether Categories 1-3 refer to original TED-Ed Dig Deeper articles; the current heading and caption are ambiguous.
[§3] The reference to Zhuang et al. (2022) and Leng et al. (2024) should state precisely how their length-standardization idea is applied, including the target length and the summarization method.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the evaluation is anchored to external TED-Ed ground-truth links and original Dig Deeper text; the paper’s internal ablation weakness is a correctness concern, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Stage 1 generates an extended article from a video transcript (the actual input); Stage 2 compares that article against a fixed database of 2,930 TED-Ed lessons using a sentence transformer and LLM reranking; Stage 3 rewrites the article. The central recommendation claim is tested with Hit Rate, which compares the model’s recommended links to the original links supplied on the TED-Ed Dig Deeper pages. That gold standard is external, independent of the generation pipeline, and not derived from any fitted parameter. The content-quality metrics BERTScore, BM25, and cosine similarity are computed against the existing TED-Ed Dig Deeper text, again an external reference, not against the model’s own output in a way that would force the result. The coherence score is assigned by an LLM rather than by human raters; this is a measurement-validity limitation, but it is not a mathematical reduction of the generated article into its own inputs, so it does not meet the threshold for circularity. The paper also contains no self-citation chain, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The ablation result showing that removing the Dig Deeper Generator raises Hit Rate from 0.320 to 0.515 is an honest internal finding that weakens the abstract’s claim of ‘accurate course suggestions,’ but undermining a claim is not the same as the claim being circular. Overall, the evaluation is self-contained against external benchmarks, and no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on treating TED-Ed's existing links as ground truth, on uniform-length transcript summaries for retrieval, on the top-100 candidate cutoff, and on LLM-assigned coherence as a quality measure. The generative-stage design assumption is contradicted by the paper's own ablation results.

free parameters (1)

top_k candidate lessons = 100
Stage 2 selects exactly 100 candidate lessons for LLM reranking; no sensitivity analysis justifies this cutoff.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption TED-Ed Dig Deeper articles and their recommended links are a valid gold standard for extended reading quality and course relevance.
The dataset section treats TED-Ed's existing structure as the generation target and as hit-rate ground truth, without evidence that these links are the correct recommendations.
domain assumption Summarizing transcripts to a uniform length preserves enough information for relevance comparison.
The paper adopts this from Zhuang et al. (2022) and Leng et al. (2024) but does not validate it for transcript-to-article comparison.
domain assumption LLM-scored coherence is a valid measure of structural quality without human calibration.
Section 5.1 uses LLM scores as the only structural-quality metric, with no human correlation study.
ad hoc to paper The three hand-chosen reranking criteria (keyword overlap, overall relevance, keyword-context alignment) are sufficient for course recommendation.
The Stage 2 prompt is designed for this paper without comparison to other reranking strategies or external validation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish: On the Extended Reading Articles Generation with LLMs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L2GELRMP

@misc{pith2026250415013,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish: On the Extended Reading Articles Generation with LLMs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L2GELRMP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15013}
}

read the original abstract

The process of creating educational materials is both time-consuming and demanding for educators. This research explores the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) to streamline this task by automating the generation of extended reading materials and relevant course suggestions. Using the TED-Ed Dig Deeper sections as an initial exploration, we investigate how supplementary articles can be enriched with contextual knowledge and connected to additional learning resources. Our method begins by generating extended articles from video transcripts, leveraging LLMs to include historical insights, cultural examples, and illustrative anecdotes. A recommendation system employing semantic similarity ranking identifies related courses, followed by an LLM-based refinement process to enhance relevance. The final articles are tailored to seamlessly integrate these recommendations, ensuring they remain cohesive and informative. Experimental evaluations demonstrate that our model produces high-quality content and accurate course suggestions, assessed through metrics such as Hit Rate, semantic similarity, and coherence. Our experimental analysis highlight the nuanced differences between the generated and existing materials, underscoring the model's capacity to offer more engaging and accessible learning experiences. This study showcases how LLMs can bridge the gap between core content and supplementary learning, providing students with additional recommended resources while also assisting teachers in designing educational materials.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15013 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Overview of System Framework. practices, frequently providing concrete examples, case studies, or anecdotes to enrich the learning experience. Therefore, we utilize an LLM as Dig Deeper Generator to create an extended reading article centered on the transcript’s main topic while incorporating these characteristics for each input video transcript. The generated article will serve as the initial version of the Dig Dee… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

[1]

Exploring the potential of large language models (llms) in learning on graphs

Zhikai Chen, Haitao Mao, Hang Li, Wei Jin, Hongzhi Wen, Xiaochi Wei, Shuaiqiang Wang, Dawei Yin, Wenqi Fan, Hui Liu, et al. Exploring the potential of large language models (llms) in learning on graphs. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 25 0 (2): 0 42--61, 2024

work page 2024
[2]

Long context rag performance of large language models

Quinn Leng, Jacob Portes, Sam Havens, Matei Zaharia, and Michael Carbin. Long context rag performance of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03538, 2024

arXiv 2024
[3]

How can recommender systems benefit from large language models: A survey

Jianghao Lin, Xinyi Dai, Yunjia Xi, Weiwen Liu, Bo Chen, Hao Zhang, Yong Liu, Chuhan Wu, Xiangyang Li, Chenxu Zhu, et al. How can recommender systems benefit from large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05817, 2023

arXiv 2023
[4]

ChatGPT in Research and Education: Exploring Benefits and Threats

Abu Saleh Musa Miah, Md Mahbubur Rahman Tusher, Md Moazzem Hossain, Md Mamun Hossain, Md Abdur Rahim, Md Ekramul Hamid, Md Saiful Islam, and Jungpil Shin. Chatgpt in research and education: Exploring benefits and threats. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02816, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[5]

Educational personalized learning path planning with large language models

Chee Ng and Yuen Fung. Educational personalized learning path planning with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11773, 2024

arXiv 2024
[6]

Enhancing student engagement through artificial intelligence (ai): Understanding the basics, opportunities, and challenges

Andy Nguyen, Mario Kremantzis, Aniekan Essien, Ilias Petrounias, and Samira Hosseini. Enhancing student engagement through artificial intelligence (ai): Understanding the basics, opportunities, and challenges. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 21 0 (06), 2024

work page 2024
[7]

Lkpnr: Llm and kg for personalized news recommendation framework

Xie Runfeng, Cui Xiangyang, Yan Zhou, Wang Xin, Xuan Zhanwei, Zhang Kai, et al. Lkpnr: Llm and kg for personalized news recommendation framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12028, 2023

arXiv 2023
[8]

A high-quality generation approach for educational programming projects using llm

Tian Song, Hang Zhang, and Yijia Xiao. A high-quality generation approach for educational programming projects using llm. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 2024

work page 2024

Show all 16 references

[9]

E-learning recommendation system

Huiyi Tan, Junfei Guo, and Yong Li. E-learning recommendation system. In 2008 International conference on computer science and software engineering, volume 5, pages 430--433. IEEE, 2008

2008
[10]

Yu, and Qingsong Wen

Shen Wang, Tianlong Xu, Hang Li, Chaoli Zhang, Joleen Liang, Jiliang Tang, Philip S. Yu, and Qingsong Wen. Large language models for education: A survey and outlook. CoRR, abs/2403.18105, 2024. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2403.18105. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.18105

2024 doi arXiv
[11]

Systematic evaluation of llm-as-a-judge in llm alignment tasks: Explainable metrics and diverse prompt templates

Hui Wei, Shenghua He, Tian Xia, Andy Wong, Jingyang Lin, and Mei Han. Systematic evaluation of llm-as-a-judge in llm alignment tasks: Explainable metrics and diverse prompt templates. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13006, 2024

2024 arXiv
[12]

A survey on large language models for recommendation

Likang Wu, Zhi Zheng, Zhaopeng Qiu, Hao Wang, Hongchao Gu, Tingjia Shen, Chuan Qin, Chen Zhu, Hengshu Zhu, Qi Liu, et al. A survey on large language models for recommendation. World Wide Web, 27 0 (5): 0 60, 2024 a

2024
[13]

Unveiling scoring processes: Dissecting the differences between llms and human graders in automatic scoring

Xuansheng Wu, Padmaja Pravin Saraf, Gyeong-Geon Lee, Ehsan Latif, Ninghao Liu, and Xiaoming Zhai. Unveiling scoring processes: Dissecting the differences between llms and human graders in automatic scoring. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.18328, 2024 b

2024 arXiv
[14]

Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi

Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with BERT . In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020 . OpenReview.net, 2020. URL https://...

2020
[15]

Recommender systems in the era of large language models (llms)

Zihuai Zhao, Wenqi Fan, Jiatong Li, Yunqing Liu, Xiaowei Mei, Yiqi Wang, Zhen Wen, Fei Wang, Xiangyu Zhao, Jiliang Tang, et al. Recommender systems in the era of large language models (llms). IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2024

2024
[16]

Bridging the gap between indexing and retrieval for differentiable search index with query generation

Shengyao Zhuang, Houxing Ren, Linjun Shou, Jian Pei, Ming Gong, Guido Zuccon, and Daxin Jiang. Bridging the gap between indexing and retrieval for differentiable search index with query generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.10128, 2022

2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Exploring the potential of large language models (llms) in learning on graphs

Zhikai Chen, Haitao Mao, Hang Li, Wei Jin, Hongzhi Wen, Xiaochi Wei, Shuaiqiang Wang, Dawei Yin, Wenqi Fan, Hui Liu, et al. Exploring the potential of large language models (llms) in learning on graphs. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 25 0 (2): 0 42--61, 2024

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Long context rag performance of large language models

Quinn Leng, Jacob Portes, Sam Havens, Matei Zaharia, and Michael Carbin. Long context rag performance of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03538, 2024

arXiv 2024

[3] [3]

How can recommender systems benefit from large language models: A survey

Jianghao Lin, Xinyi Dai, Yunjia Xi, Weiwen Liu, Bo Chen, Hao Zhang, Yong Liu, Chuhan Wu, Xiangyang Li, Chenxu Zhu, et al. How can recommender systems benefit from large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05817, 2023

arXiv 2023

[4] [4]

ChatGPT in Research and Education: Exploring Benefits and Threats

Abu Saleh Musa Miah, Md Mahbubur Rahman Tusher, Md Moazzem Hossain, Md Mamun Hossain, Md Abdur Rahim, Md Ekramul Hamid, Md Saiful Islam, and Jungpil Shin. Chatgpt in research and education: Exploring benefits and threats. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02816, 2024

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[5] [5]

Educational personalized learning path planning with large language models

Chee Ng and Yuen Fung. Educational personalized learning path planning with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11773, 2024

arXiv 2024

[6] [6]

Enhancing student engagement through artificial intelligence (ai): Understanding the basics, opportunities, and challenges

Andy Nguyen, Mario Kremantzis, Aniekan Essien, Ilias Petrounias, and Samira Hosseini. Enhancing student engagement through artificial intelligence (ai): Understanding the basics, opportunities, and challenges. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 21 0 (06), 2024

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Lkpnr: Llm and kg for personalized news recommendation framework

Xie Runfeng, Cui Xiangyang, Yan Zhou, Wang Xin, Xuan Zhanwei, Zhang Kai, et al. Lkpnr: Llm and kg for personalized news recommendation framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12028, 2023

arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

A high-quality generation approach for educational programming projects using llm

Tian Song, Hang Zhang, and Yijia Xiao. A high-quality generation approach for educational programming projects using llm. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 2024

work page 2024