Source author record

Heejin Do

Heejin Do appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

2works
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2026arXiv

Exploring Iterative Controllable Summarization with Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in abstractive summarization tasks. However, their ability to precisely control summary attributes (e.g., length or topic) remains underexplored, limiting their adaptability to specific user preferences. In this paper, we systematically explore the controllability of LLMs. To this end, we revisit summary attribute measurements and introduce iterative evaluation metrics, failure rate and average iteration count to precisely evaluate controllability of LLMs, rather than merely assessing errors. Our findings show that LLMs struggle more with numerical attributes than with linguistic attributes. To address this challenge, we propose a guide-to-explain framework (GTE) for controllable summarization. Our GTE framework enables the model to identify misaligned attributes in the initial draft and guides it in self-explaining errors in the previous output. By allowing the model to reflect on its misalignment, GTE generates well-adjusted summaries that satisfy the desired attributes with robust effectiveness, requiring surprisingly fewer iterations than other iterative approaches.

preprint2026arXiv

Simulating Students or Sycophantic Problem Solving? On Misconception Faithfulness of LLM Simulators

Large language models (LLMs) can fluently generate student-like responses, making them attractive as simulated students for training and evaluating AI tutors and human educators. Yet such simulators are typically evaluated by output similarity to real students, not by whether they behave like students with coherent misconceptions during interaction. We introduce a controlled framework for evaluating misconception faithfulness, whether a simulator maintains a misconception-driven belief state and updates selectively when feedback addresses the underlying misconception. Central to our framework is a misconception-contrastive feedback protocol that compares targeted feedback against two controls: misaligned feedback (targeting a different but plausible misconception) and generic feedback (only identifying answer is wrong). We propose Selective Flip Score (SFS), which quantifies how much more often a simulator flips its answer under targeted feedback than under contrastive controls. Across seven LLMs (4B-120B), multiple datasets, and prompting strategies, simulators exhibit near-zero SFS, correcting their answers at similarly high rates regardless of feedback relevance. Further analyses reveal a sycophantic failure mode: models behave less like students with misconceptions but more like problem-solvers who treat any corrective signal as a cue to abandon the simulated belief and re-solve from internal knowledge. To address this, we develop a post-training pipeline spanning supervised fine-tuning (SFT), preference optimization, and reinforcement learning (RL) with an SFS-aligned reward; SFT yields notable gains up to +0.56, and SFS-aligned RL provides more consistent improvements than preference optimization. Our results establish misconception faithfulness as a challenging yet trainable property, motivating a shift from static output matching toward interactive, belief-aware student modeling.