Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces ELBench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) against four critical dimensions for educational applications: General Capability, Safety and Trustworthiness, Basic Education, and High-Level Cultivation. The evaluation of nine models reveals that while aggregate scores are similar, module-level performance varies significantly, highlighting a strong negative correlation between safety and practical teaching effectiveness. Notably, Chinese-developed models excel in safety metrics, but education-specialized models fail to outperform general-purpose systems in educational tasks, raising questions about the effectiveness of domain-specific post-training.
Safety in education-facing LLMs is inversely related to their teaching effectiveness, challenging assumptions about model specialization.
Large language models are increasingly deployed in education as tutors, teaching assistants, and content generators. These roles place demands that ordinary question answering does not: a usable education-facing model is supposed to be accurate, safe under sensitive prompts, instructionally useful, and aligned with pedagogical goals at the same time. Existing benchmarks evaluate these requirements largely in isolation, so none assesses education-facing suitability as an integrated profile. We introduce ELBench, the first benchmark to evaluate all four requirements (General Capability, Safety and Trustworthiness, Basic Education, and High-Level Cultivation) on the same models under a common protocol, combining curated public sources with newly synthesized safety and cultivation data. We evaluate nine models, seven frontier general-purpose systems and two education-specialized variants, and report three findings. First, module-level profiles are more informative than a single aggregate: the top six models are statistically indistinguishable on overall score, yet their module leaders differ substantially, and safety is anti-correlated with practical teaching (r = -0.83). Second, the Chinese-developed models lead the safety module, the most discriminative in the suite; this advantage is largest on region-specific normative content and narrows, but does not vanish, on universal-harm content. Third, the two education-specialized models lead neither education module, and on High-Level Cultivation all models share a systematic blind spot: on the structured judgment task they converge on the same non-reference option, favoring pedagogical style over fit to the stated goal, so the module scores uniformly low and does not separate models. This raises, but does not resolve, whether domain post-training keeps pace with frontier systems on education tasks.
