Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Do LLMs Implicitly Determine the Suitable Text Difficulty for Users?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2402.14453 v1 pith:KEVST426 submitted 2024-02-22 cs.CL

Do LLMs Implicitly Determine the Suitable Text Difficulty for Users?

classification cs.CL
keywords difficultyllmstextdatasetimplicitlyadjustconversationgenerated
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Education that suits the individual learning level is necessary to improve students' understanding. The first step in achieving this purpose by using large language models (LLMs) is to adjust the textual difficulty of the response to students. This work analyzes how LLMs can implicitly adjust text difficulty between user input and its generated text. To conduct the experiments, we created a new dataset from Stack-Overflow to explore the performance of question-answering-based conversation. Experimental results on the Stack-Overflow dataset and the TSCC dataset, including multi-turn conversation show that LLMs can implicitly handle text difficulty between user input and its generated response. We also observed that some LLMs can surpass humans in handling text difficulty and the importance of instruction-tuning.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Confidence Calibration in Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0

    LLMs show average overconfidence moderated by a strong hard-easy effect, quantified across tasks and via the new LifeEval actuarial-probability benchmark.