Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a four-layer model of pedagogical safety for educational RL, encompassing structural, progress, behavioral, and alignment safety. It proposes the Reward Hacking Severity Index (RHSI) to quantify misalignment between proxy rewards and genuine learning in AI tutoring systems. Experiments in a simulated tutoring environment demonstrate that engagement-optimized agents can exhibit reward hacking, which can be mitigated by constrained architectures enforcing prerequisites and minimum cognitive demand.
Reward design alone may be insufficient to prevent AI tutors from gaming the system and prioritizing engagement over actual learning.
Reinforcement learning (RL) is increasingly used to personalize instruction in intelligent tutoring systems, yet the field lacks a formal framework for defining and evaluating pedagogical safety. We introduce a four-layer model of pedagogical safety for educational RL comprising structural, progress, behavioral, and alignment safety and propose the Reward Hacking Severity Index (RHSI) to quantify misalignment between proxy rewards and genuine learning. We evaluate the framework in a controlled simulation of an AI tutoring environment with 120 sessions across four conditions and three learner profiles, totaling 18{,}000 interactions. Results show that an engagement-optimized agent systematically over-selected a high-engagement action with no direct mastery gain, producing strong measured performance but limited learning progress. A multi-objective reward formulation reduced this problem but did not eliminate it, as the agent continued to favor proxy-rewarding behavior in many states. In contrast, a constrained architecture combining prerequisite enforcement and minimum cognitive demand substantially reduced reward hacking, lowering RHSI from 0.317 in the unconstrained multi-objective condition to 0.102. Ablation results further suggest that behavioral safety was the most influential safeguard against repetitive low-value action selection. These findings suggest that reward design alone may be insufficient to ensure pedagogically aligned behavior in educational RL, at least in the simulated environment studied here. More broadly, the paper positions pedagogical safety as an important research problem at the intersection of AI safety and intelligent educational systems.