Date
Publisher
arXiv
Large Language Models for Simulating Professions (SP-LLMs), particularly as teachers, are pivotal for personalized education. However, ensuring their professional competence and ethical safety is a critical challenge, as existing benchmarks fail to measure role-playing fidelity or address the unique teaching harms inherent in educational scenarios. To address this, we propose EduGuardBench, a dual-component benchmark. It assesses professional fidelity using a Role-playing Fidelity Score (RFS) while diagnosing harms specific to the teaching profession. It also probes safety vulnerabilities using persona-based adversarial prompts targeting both general harms and, particularly, academic misconduct, evaluated with metrics including Attack Success Rate (ASR) and a three-tier Refusal Quality assessment. Our extensive experiments on 14 leading models reveal a stark polarization in performance. While reasoning-oriented models generally show superior fidelity, incompetence remains the dominant failure mode across most models. The adversarial tests uncovered a counterintuitive scaling paradox, where mid-sized models can be the most vulnerable, challenging monotonic safety assumptions. Critically, we identified a powerful Educational Transformation Effect: the safest models excel at converting harmful requests into teachable moments by providing ideal Educational Refusals. This capacity is strongly negatively correlated with ASR, revealing a new dimension of advanced AI safety. EduGuardBench thus provides a reproducible framework that moves beyond siloed knowledge tests toward a holistic assessment of professional, ethical, and pedagogical alignment, uncovering complex dynamics essential for deploying trustworthy AI in education. See https://github.com/YL1N/EduGuardBench for Materials.
Study at a glance
- Question: How well do large language models maintain pedagogical fidelity and resist adversarial safety prompts when simulating teachers?
- Setting and data: Benchmark of 2,636 multiple-answer questions and 801 adversarial prompts spanning K-12 to higher education subjects.
- Method: Benchmark evaluation comparing 14 models using automated scoring, LLM-as-a-judge annotation, and statistical tests.
Why it matters
Simulating teachers with language models holds immense promise, but current benchmarks fail to measure role-playing fidelity or address unique educational harms like academic misconduct, leaving a critical gap in evaluating their ethical reliability.
Key findings
- Reasoning-oriented models achieved higher average fidelity scores (0.723 vs 0.663) and lower harmful inclusion rates (22.73% vs 30.46%) than non-reasoning models.
- Adversarial safety varied widely across models, revealing an inverted U-shaped scaling pattern where medium-sized 32B models showed higher attack success rates than 8B or 235B models.
- Safest models demonstrated an educational transformation effect, converting harmful student requests into teachable moments via educational refusals, which correlated strongly and negatively with attack success.
Summary drafted with AI from the full paper and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Who is the user?
Why use AI?
