NotebookLM: An LLM with RAG for active learning and collaborative tutoring

Abstract

Key Aspects

• Introduction to NotebookLM and RAG: The study introduces NotebookLM, an AI platform powered by Google Gemini, specifically examining its capabilities when enhanced with Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). RAG is presented as a crucial technique for improving LLM reliability by grounding responses in external, verified knowledge sources, contrasting with standard LLMs that rely solely on internal training data. The primary application explored is its use as a collaborative physics tutor, positioning the research within the rapidly developing field of AI in education.
• Implementation as a Collaborative Physics Tutor: The paper details a specific implementation where NotebookLM functions as an AI physics tutor designed to assist students with conceptual problems through a collaborative, Socratic methodology. This involves restricting interaction to a chat interface to ensure controlled engagement and grounding the AI's responses in teacher-provided documents. This grounding mechanism is highlighted as a key strategy to mitigate LLM hallucinations, thereby increasing the traceability and reliability of the tutor's guidance, which is significant for educational applications where accuracy is paramount.
• Potential and Benefits in Education: The research demonstrates NotebookLM's value as an accessible educational tool, emphasizing its potential for low-cost, easily implementable, personalized AI-assisted learning in physics. The use of RAG ensures that the learning experience is traceable back to specific source materials, enhancing accountability. This positions NotebookLM as a practical solution for diverse educational contexts seeking to leverage AI for tailored student support.
• Functionality as a Study Tool: Beyond its role as a tutor, the study notes NotebookLM's utility as a broader study aid for both educators and learners. It can automatically generate targeted questions, study guides, and other supplementary materials based on uploaded source documents. This functionality extends its value beyond direct tutoring, supporting classroom instruction, independent study, and research activities by providing structured learning resources derived from curated content.
• Acknowledged Limitations and Contribution: The abstract candidly acknowledges the limitations associated with the current implementation and the underlying technology. These include practical constraints like legal restrictions on use in certain educational settings (e.g., age limits), the current limitation to text-only interaction which may hinder certain pedagogical approaches, and the inherent reliability challenges associated with probabilistic AI models. Despite these constraints, the work is framed as a significant, promising example of applying grounded AI effectively within physics education.

Strengths

• Clear Statement of Purpose

  The abstract clearly outlines the study's focus on NotebookLM, its integration of RAG, and its application as a collaborative physics tutor, providing a concise overview of the research scope.

  "This study explores NotebookLM—a Google Gemini-powered AI platform that integrates Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)—as a collaborative physics tutor..." (Page 1)
• Addresses Key LLM Limitation

  It effectively highlights how the RAG approach, by grounding responses in provided sources, addresses the significant issue of hallucinations common in standard LLMs, thereby enhancing reliability and traceability.

  "By grounding its responses in teacher-provided source documents, NotebookLM helps mitigate one of the major shortcomings of standard large language models—hallucinations—thereby ensuring more traceable and reliable answers." (Page 1)
• Highlights Practical Benefits

  The abstract points out the practical advantages of the proposed tool, emphasizing its low cost and ease of implementation, which are crucial factors for adoption in diverse educational settings.

  "Our experiments demonstrate NotebookLM’s potential as a low-cost, easily implemented RAG-based tool for personalized and traceable AI-assisted physics learning in diverse educational settings." (Page 1)
• Acknowledges Limitations

  The abstract appropriately acknowledges the current limitations of the approach, including legal restrictions, interaction modality, and inherent model reliability issues, presenting a balanced perspective.

  "While limitations remain—particularly regarding legal restrictions, the current text-only mode of interaction, and the intrinsic reliability challenges of statistical models—this work presents a promising example..." (Page 1)

Suggestions for Improvement

• Explicitly Link Implementation to 'Active Learning' and 'Collaborative Tutoring'

  This low-impact improvement would enhance reader comprehension from the outset. The Abstract is the first point of contact, and explicitly linking the described implementation (Socratic approach, guided engagement) to the concepts of 'active learning' and 'collaborative tutoring' mentioned in the title would clarify the pedagogical framework immediately. Briefly defining how the tool facilitates these specific learning modes within the abstract would strengthen the initial framing of the study's contribution to physics education.

  "In our implementation, NotebookLM was configured as an AI physics collaborative tutor to support students in solving conceptually oriented physics problems using a collaborative, Socratic approach." (Page 1)

  Implementation: After describing the implementation (e.g., '...using a collaborative, Socratic approach'), add a concise phrase explicitly stating how this embodies the core concepts. For example: '...using a collaborative, Socratic approach, thereby fostering active learning through guided inquiry and functioning as a collaborative tutor by partnering with the student in the problem-solving process.'

• Briefly Qualify Experimental Basis

  This low-impact suggestion aims to refine the claims made in the Abstract for greater precision. The Abstract states that experiments 'demonstrate NotebookLM’s potential,' but lacks even a minimal qualifier regarding the nature or extent of these experiments. Adding a brief descriptor would enhance credibility and manage reader expectations appropriately within the Abstract itself, without needing extensive detail. This clarification strengthens the foundation of the claim presented.

  "Our experiments demonstrate NotebookLM’s potential as a low-cost, easily implemented RAG-based tool for personalized and traceable AI-assisted physics learning in diverse educational settings." (Page 1)

  Implementation: Modify the sentence discussing the experimental results to include a brief qualifier. Instead of 'Our experiments demonstrate...', consider phrasing like 'Our initial experiments demonstrate...', 'Pilot studies demonstrate...', or 'Qualitative examples demonstrate...'. Choose the term that best reflects the methodology detailed later in the paper.

Introduction

Key Aspects

• Context of LLMs in Physics Education: The introduction situates the research within the context of rapidly advancing Large Language Models (LLMs) and their potential impact on physics pedagogy. It notes the evolution of LLMs from basic text generators to more sophisticated systems capable of contextual understanding. This establishes the technological background and highlights the timeliness of investigating AI applications in educational settings, particularly within scientific disciplines like physics.
• LLM Limitation: Hallucination: A significant challenge associated with LLMs, termed 'hallucination' – the generation of false or fabricated information – is clearly identified as a major limitation. The text attributes this issue to the inherent probabilistic nature of the next-word prediction algorithms fundamental to these models. Understanding this limitation is crucial as it motivates the need for alternative approaches to ensure reliability, especially in educational contexts where factual accuracy is paramount.
• Introduction to Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): The section contrasts traditional, resource-intensive methods for domain-specific LLM adaptation (e.g., full training, fine-tuning) with Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). RAG is presented as a distinct strategy that enhances LLM performance and reliability not by altering the base model extensively, but by integrating external, verified knowledge sources during the generation process. This distinction highlights RAG's potential efficiency and focus on leveraging existing, curated information.
• RAG Mechanism and Reliability Enhancement: The core mechanism of RAG is explained: instead of relying exclusively on its internal training data, a RAG system actively searches and retrieves relevant information from external documents provided to it. It then uses this retrieved information to 'ground' its generated responses, ensuring they are based on factual, verifiable sources. This grounding process is positioned as the key advantage of RAG for mitigating hallucinations and improving the trustworthiness of LLM outputs.
• Existing RAG Applications in Physics Education: To illustrate the practical application of RAG in the target field, the introduction cites specific existing platforms used in physics education, namely LEAP and the Ethel project. Mentioning these concrete examples serves to demonstrate that RAG is not merely a theoretical concept but an approach already being implemented and explored within the relevant educational domain. This provides context for the current study's investigation of a similar RAG-based tool.

Strengths

• Establishes Context and Relevance

  The introduction effectively establishes the context by highlighting recent progress in Large Language Models (LLMs) and their growing relevance to pedagogical approaches, particularly in physics.

  "Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) are prompting research into their potential applications and implications for pedagogical approaches in fields such as physics." (Page 1)
• Clearly Defines Core Problem (Hallucination)

  It clearly identifies a critical limitation of LLMs – the tendency to 'hallucinate' or generate false information – and accurately attributes this to the probabilistic nature of their underlying algorithms.

  "Despite this progress, many LLMs remain susceptible to generating false or entirely fabricated information - a phenomenon widely referred to as widely referred to as “hallucination” [1]." (Page 1)
• Introduces and Defines RAG

  The text effectively contrasts resource-intensive traditional methods (training from scratch, fine-tuning) with the alternative strategy of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), clearly defining RAG's core mechanism.

  "An alternative, less cost-effective strategy is known as Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) [2]. RAG improves the performance and reliability of LLMs by incorporating external, verified sources of knowledge into the text generation process." (Page 1)
• Explains RAG's Mechanism for Reliability

  The introduction successfully explains the key benefit of RAG – grounding responses in factual information retrieved from external documents, thereby enhancing reliability compared to models relying solely on internal training data.

  "Rather than relying solely on internal training data, a RAG-based system actively retrieves relevant documents to ground its responses in factual information." (Page 1)
• Provides Relevant Examples

  The section appropriately situates the work within the existing landscape by mentioning specific prior examples of RAG applications in physics education (LEAP, Ethel), providing concrete reference points.

  "Remarkable examples of RAG-based applications in physics education include the LEAP platform [3] and the Ethel project [4]." (Page 1)

Suggestions for Improvement

• Explicitly Introduce NotebookLM within the Introduction Section

  This medium-impact improvement would enhance the paper's framing and logical flow. The Introduction section effectively sets the stage by discussing LLMs, hallucinations, and the RAG approach, including examples like LEAP and Ethel. However, it concludes without explicitly mentioning NotebookLM, the specific RAG-based tool that is the central focus of this study (as stated in the Abstract). Introducing NotebookLM at the end of Section 1 would provide a crucial bridge between the general background and the specific subject of the paper, aligning the Introduction's scope more closely with the paper's overall objective and improving reader orientation early in the main text.

  "Remarkable examples of RAG-based applications in physics education include the LEAP platform [3] and the Ethel project [4]. LEAP provides a controlled environment in which teachers design tasks with" (Page 1)

  Implementation: Add a concluding sentence to the final paragraph of Section 1. After mentioning the LEAP and Ethel examples, insert a transition that introduces NotebookLM as the specific RAG system investigated in this work. For example: 'Building upon the potential demonstrated by such systems, this study focuses on Google's NotebookLM, exploring its capabilities and implementation as a RAG-based collaborative tutor in physics education.'

Non-Text Elements

Figure 1. Screenshot of the NotebookLM interface showing the three panels:...

Full Caption

Figure 1. Screenshot of the NotebookLM interface showing the three panels: Sources for storing and indexing diverse teaching materials with traceable citations; chat for dialogue; and study for automatically generating structured learning aids such as summaries, study guides, mind maps and podcast-style audio summaries.

Figure/Table Image (Page 2)

First Reference in Text

Figure 1 illustrates the NotebookLM interface, which is structured into three primary components: Sources, Chat, and Studio.

Description

• Sources Panel: The figure displays a screenshot of the NotebookLM software interface. This interface is visually divided into three main vertical sections or panels. The leftmost panel, labeled 'Sources', shows a list of documents that have been uploaded by the user. In this example, titles like 'NotebookLM Instructions and Solutions t...' and 'Student handout Problems...' are visible, indicating these are the materials the AI will use. This panel acts like a digital filing cabinet for the information the AI tutor can access.
• Chat Panel and Socratic Method: The central panel, labeled 'Chat', is the primary interaction area. It resembles a typical chat application interface where a user can type questions or prompts at the bottom ('Start typing...'). Above the input area, a sample interaction is shown where the AI introduces itself as an 'AI physics tutor with socratic approach'. The Socratic approach, named after the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, is a method of teaching that involves asking guiding questions to stimulate critical thinking and help students arrive at answers independently, rather than simply providing direct solutions. This panel is where the dialogue between the student and the AI tutor takes place.
• Studio Panel: The rightmost panel, labeled 'Studio', offers tools for generating supplementary learning materials based on the documents in the 'Sources' panel. Buttons for features like 'Audio Overview' (which likely creates a spoken summary), 'Study guide', 'Briefing doc', and 'Timeline' are visible. This panel provides automated tools to help users synthesize and review the source information in different formats.

Scientific Validity

• Interface Representation Accuracy: The figure accurately represents the user interface of the NotebookLM platform as described. It serves as a visual aid to familiarize the reader with the tool being discussed, rather than presenting empirical data or results.
• Illustrative Purpose: As a screenshot, the figure's primary validity lies in its faithful depiction of the software. It does not present scientific data requiring validation of methodology or results but illustrates the platform whose capabilities are the subject of the study.

Communication

• Visual Clarity and Structure: The figure provides a clear visual representation of the NotebookLM interface, effectively illustrating the three-panel structure (Sources, Chat, Studio) discussed in the text. The labels and content within each panel are sufficiently legible.
• Caption Accuracy: The caption accurately describes the content of the screenshot, explaining the function of each panel and aligning well with the visual information presented.
• Contextual Relevance: Placing this figure in the Introduction helps readers unfamiliar with NotebookLM to quickly grasp its layout and basic functionalities, providing essential context for the subsequent discussion of its application as an AI tutor.
• Static Representation: While the screenshot shows the interface, it doesn't inherently demonstrate the dynamic capabilities or the effectiveness of the Socratic tutoring described. It serves as a static illustration of the tool's structure.

Figure 2. NotebookLM interface: (a) Sharing options configuration available to...

Full Caption

Figure 2. NotebookLM interface: (a) Sharing options configuration available to teachers with NotebookLM Plus, allowing chat-only access for students.

Figure/Table Image (Page 4)

First Reference in Text

This premium tier enables the essential feature of sharing a secure, chat-only interface with students (who need a Google account for access), thereby preventing them from viewing the underlying source documents used by the tutor (see Figure 2a).

Description

• Interface Element: Figure 2a displays a screenshot of the sharing settings pop-up window within the NotebookLM software, specifically highlighting features available in the 'NotebookLM Plus' subscription tier. This tier is a paid version offering more functionalities than the standard free version.
• Access Control Setting ('Chat only'): The central focus is on the access control setting for users ('Viewers') with whom the notebook is shared. A specific option, 'Chat only', is selected via a radio button. This setting restricts shared users (students, in this context) so they can only interact with the AI through the chat interface and cannot see or access the original source documents or notes uploaded by the teacher. This is analogous to giving someone access only to a specific communication channel, like a chat room, without letting them see the background documents or files being discussed.
• Welcome Note Feature: Below the access control, there is a section titled 'Welcome Note'. This feature allows the creator (teacher) to write a custom message that appears when a shared user (student) first opens the notebook. An example welcome message is partially visible, starting with 'Welcome! In this activity, NotebookLM acts as an AI collaborator...'. A character counter shows '489 / 500', indicating the message is near the maximum length allowed.
• Action Buttons: Buttons for 'Copy link' and 'Save' are present, standard actions for sharing content online and saving settings.

Scientific Validity

• Accurate Representation of UI: The figure accurately portrays the user interface elements for configuring sharing permissions in NotebookLM Plus, specifically the 'Chat only' access option critical to the study's setup.
• Verification of Platform Feature: The element serves as evidence for the existence and nature of the platform feature being utilized. Its validity is based on accurately showing the software's capability as described in the text, which is fundamental to the described implementation.

Communication

• Clarity of Feature Illustration: Figure 2a clearly illustrates the specific 'Chat only' access control feature, which is crucial for the described implementation of the AI tutor. It visually confirms the capability discussed in the text.
• Caption Specificity: The caption accurately specifies that panel (a) shows the sharing options configuration, linking it directly to the NotebookLM Plus feature and the chat-only access mode.
• Visual Distinction of Access Levels: The visual distinction between 'Chat only' and the implied alternative (full access) is clear through the radio button selection, effectively communicating the restriction being applied.
• Text-Figure Synergy: The figure effectively complements the text by providing a concrete visual example of the interface element that enables the core setup (restricted student access) for the pedagogical intervention described.

Figure 3. Example of NotebookLM's graph interpretation from Google Docs: (a)...

Full Caption

Figure 3. Example of NotebookLM's graph interpretation from Google Docs: (a) Velocity-time graph for the bouncing ball problem (adapted from [11]).

Figure/Table Image (Page 5)

First Reference in Text

As illustrated in Figure 3, when the graph was embedded within a Google Doc, NotebookLM accurately described its key features and the phases of motion.

Description

• Graph Type and Axes: Figure 3a presents a 'velocity-time graph', which is a type of chart used in physics to show how the speed and direction (velocity) of an object changes over a period of time. The horizontal axis represents time, measured in seconds (s), ranging from 0.0 to 1.0 second. The vertical axis represents velocity, measured in meters per second (m/s), ranging from -5 m/s to +5 m/s. A positive velocity typically indicates movement in one direction (e.g., upwards), while a negative velocity indicates movement in the opposite direction (e.g., downwards).
• Falling Phase: The graph plots the motion of a tennis ball. It starts at time 0 s with a velocity of 0 m/s. The velocity then becomes increasingly negative (the ball speeds up downwards) along a straight line, reaching approximately -4.7 m/s at about 0.58 s. This represents the ball falling under gravity.
• Bouncing Phase: At approximately 0.58 s, there is a very sharp, almost vertical jump in velocity from about -4.7 m/s to about +3.5 m/s. This sudden change represents the moment the ball hits the floor and instantly reverses its direction, bouncing upwards. The velocity becomes positive, indicating upward motion.
• Rising Phase: After the bounce, from 0.58 s onwards, the positive velocity decreases along a straight line, eventually reaching 0 m/s at approximately 1.02 s. This represents the ball moving upwards but slowing down due to gravity, until it momentarily stops at the peak of its bounce.
• Inelastic Bounce Indication: The graph shows that the magnitude of the velocity just after the bounce (around +3.5 m/s) is less than the magnitude just before the bounce (around -4.7 m/s), indicating that the bounce was not perfectly elastic; some energy was lost during the collision with the floor.

Scientific Validity

• Physical Accuracy: The graph correctly depicts the kinematics of a bouncing ball under constant gravitational acceleration (approximated by the straight-line segments) and an inelastic collision with a surface. The negative slope during free fall and positive slope during the rise (when plotted as speed vs time, or negative velocity vs time as here) are consistent with constant downward acceleration due to gravity.
• Idealization of Bounce: The instantaneous change in velocity during the bounce is an idealization; in reality, the collision takes a very short but non-zero amount of time. However, this representation is standard and appropriate for introductory physics problems.
• Source Adaptation: The caption notes the graph is adapted from reference [11], a physics textbook. Assuming the adaptation is faithful, the graph represents a standard, validated physics problem scenario.

Communication

• Clarity of Presentation: The graph (Figure 3a) is clearly presented with labeled axes ('Time (s)' and 'Velocity (m/s)') and units, making it readily interpretable.
• Descriptive Title: The title 'Velocity vs. Time for Tennis Ball Bounce' is descriptive and accurately reflects the content of the graph.
• Data Representation: The data points and connecting lines clearly depict the changes in velocity over time, illustrating the distinct phases of the bouncing ball's motion (fall, bounce, rise).
• Role within Figure: As panel (a) of a larger figure demonstrating NotebookLM's interpretation capabilities, it effectively serves as the input stimulus for the AI's analysis shown or described in panel (b) or the text.

Methodology

Key Aspects

• NotebookLM Platform and Features: NotebookLM is presented as a versatile RAG-based platform applicable in educational settings. Its core functionality involves indexing user-uploaded source materials (texts, PDFs, videos) to generate responses grounded in that specific content, complete with citations, thereby mitigating hallucination risks associated with standard LLMs. Additional features like audio summaries, note integration, and upcoming capabilities like language selection and internet source discovery enhance its utility for creating personalized knowledge bases.
• Teacher Applications and Workflow: The methodology outlines distinct applications for educators, positioning NotebookLM as a tool for personal research and teaching preparation. Teachers can upload diverse materials to create a tailored knowledge repository, ask questions about the content, generate study aids like guides and mind maps, and even create interactive textbook resources. The ability to share resources in a controlled, read-only or chat-only mode is highlighted as a key feature for classroom use.
• Student Learning Environment and Features: For students, NotebookLM is framed as a comprehensive learning environment when provided by a teacher. It offers access to curated source materials, automatically generated summaries and FAQs, and an interactive chat interface for dialogue-based learning and active recall. Multimodal features like audio summaries and multi-language interaction capabilities are noted for enhancing accessibility and catering to diverse learning preferences.
• AI Tutor Implementation via Training Manual: A core component of the methodology is the implementation of a collaborative AI tutor within NotebookLM, specifically designed for physics problem-solving. This involved creating a detailed 'Training Manual' source document to define the AI's pedagogical approach (Socratic/collaborative, incremental guidance, confidentiality) and conversational strategies. The manual's development was iterative, refined through preliminary testing to shape the AI's behavior towards supportive guidance rather than direct answer provision.
• Technical Requirements and Sharing Configuration: Specific technical and practical considerations for implementing the tutor are detailed. A NotebookLM Plus subscription is identified as essential for enabling the chat-only sharing mode, which prevents students from accessing underlying source documents like solutions or the Training Manual itself. This setup allows teachers to control the knowledge base and customize the tutor's behavior while maintaining a secure student interface.
• Problem Selection and Format Considerations: The methodology addresses the selection and formatting of learning materials, particularly physics problems. Problems were chosen to be conceptual, non-trivial, and likely outside the LLM's general training data, focusing on qualitative understanding over complex mathematics (due to NotebookLM's lack of LaTeX rendering). Crucially, Google Docs format was selected over PDF for problems with visual elements based on direct testing that showed superior graph interpretation accuracy, deemed vital for physics.
• Tutor Operating Modes: The configured AI tutor operates in two distinct modes depending on the availability of source material for a given problem. When solutions or notes are provided, the tutor primarily uses guiding questions derived from these sources and Socratic principles. For problems without pre-loaded solutions, it leverages the underlying Gemini model's reasoning, maintaining a guided inquiry approach while acknowledging the potential for inaccuracies inherent in general model knowledge.

Strengths

• Clear Description of Tool Capabilities

  The methodology clearly outlines the specific features and capabilities of NotebookLM relevant to its use as an educational tool, including RAG, multimodal input handling (PDFs, Docs, videos), source citation, and automated generation of learning aids (summaries, FAQs, mind maps).

  "Users can easily upload various document types - such as PDFs, Word files, presentations and videos - to create a personalised repository of verified content... NotebookLM then indexes these documents to generate answers with explicit citations..." (Page 2)
• Detailed Use Cases for Teachers and Students

  The paper effectively details the distinct potential applications for both teachers (creating personalized knowledge bases, generating study materials, sharing resources) and students (interactive learning environment, multimodal engagement, AI tutor interaction), providing a comprehensive view of the tool's versatility.

  "For students, the teacher-provided NotebookLM can serve as a comprehensive learning environment... it provides automatically generated resources such as summaries and FAQs based on the source material, as well as a primary interactive chat interface..." (Page 3)
• Thorough AI Tutor Implementation Details

  The implementation of the AI tutor is well-described, including the rationale (Socratic interaction, supportive partner), the creation and iterative refinement of a 'Training Manual' to guide AI behavior, and the pedagogical constraints imposed.

  "To achieve this, a detailed 'Training Manual' was created and provided as a source document for the AI, defining its specific conversational strategies, pedagogical constraints, and operational guidelines... Initial versions were refined based on observing NotebookLM’s actual behavior during preliminary tests..." (Page 4)
• Justification for Technical Choices

  The methodology provides clear justification for specific technical choices, such as the necessity of NotebookLM Plus for chat-only sharing to protect source materials and the selection of Google Docs format over PDF for problems with visual elements based on empirical testing.

  "Our observations revealed that NotebookLM’s performance in interpreting graphs from PDF sources was less accurate and reliable compared to its performance with the same graphs presented within Google Documents." (Page 5)
• Clear Rationale for Problem Selection

  The rationale for selecting specific physics problems (conceptual focus, non-trivial, outside typical LLM training data, simple math due to LaTeX limitations) is clearly articulated, aligning the methodology with the study's aim of assessing conceptual guidance.

  "While the textbook offers a diverse range of exercises, the selected tasks are those that are conceptually focused, non-trivial, and engaging, thereby reducing the likelihood that they were part of the LLM’s general training data." (Page 5)

Suggestions for Improvement

• Provide More Detail on Training Manual Iterative Refinement

  This medium-impact suggestion would enhance methodological transparency and reproducibility. The Methodology section, specifically section 3.1, mentions the iterative development of the 'Training Manual' based on preliminary tests but lacks specific details about this process. Providing more information would strengthen the paper by clarifying the rigor of the tutor's development and allowing other researchers to better understand the refinement steps taken. This detail is crucial within the Methodology as it pertains directly to how the core intervention (the AI tutor's behavior) was shaped.

  "Although concise (spanning only a few pages), this manual was developed iteratively. Initial versions were refined based on observing NotebookLM’s actual behavior during preliminary tests, allowing us to implement corrections..." (Page 4)

  Implementation: In Section 3.1, elaborate briefly on the iterative refinement process. For instance, mention the approximate number of major iterations the manual underwent or provide a more specific example of a correction implemented beyond the general statement about counteracting direct solutions (e.g., 'we added instructions to explicitly ask for the student's reasoning before offering a hint').

• Summarize Key Socratic/Collaborative Principles from Training Manual

  This medium-impact improvement would enhance the reader's understanding of the pedagogical approach implemented. The Methodology section states that the Training Manual establishes principles based on the 'Socratic/collaborative method' but does not elaborate on what specific aspects of this method were operationalized. Adding a brief summary within the Methodology would strengthen the paper by providing a clearer picture of the intended tutor-student interaction dynamics without requiring readers to consult the Supplementary Material. This clarification is best placed in the Methodology as it defines the core pedagogical strategy being implemented and tested.

  "This manual (available in full as Supplementary Material) establishes core pedagogical principles centred on the Socratic/collaborative method and incremental guidance, instructing the AI to actively support the student’s problem-solving process." (Page 4)

  Implementation: In Section 3.1, after mentioning the Socratic/collaborative method, add a sentence briefly summarizing 1-2 key techniques encoded in the manual. For example: 'Key strategies included prompting students to articulate their reasoning, asking guiding questions to break down problems, and providing incremental hints only after assessing student understanding.'

• Clarify Timing of Google Docs vs. PDF Comparison Relative to Updates

  This low-impact suggestion aims to improve clarity regarding tool updates. The Methodology notes that the preference for Google Docs over PDF for graphs persisted even after considering April 2025 updates to NotebookLM's PDF capabilities, but it doesn't explicitly state whether the direct comparative testing was performed before or after these updates became functionally available. Clarifying the timing would strengthen the claim by removing ambiguity about whether the comparison reflects the latest version mentioned. This detail fits within the Methodology as it relates directly to the procedure for selecting the document format.

  "This limitation was observed even considering the enhancements to NotebookLM’s multimodal PDF capabilities announced on April 2, 2025 https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2025/04/updates-to-sources-for-NotebookLM-and-NotebookLMPlus.html." (Page 5)

  Implementation: In Section 3.1, clarify the timing of the comparative testing relative to the April 2025 update. For example, modify the sentence to state: 'Our observations from direct comparative testing conducted in February 2025 revealed that NotebookLM's performance... This limitation was still observed in subsequent informal checks even considering the enhancements... announced on April 2, 2025.' OR 'Direct comparative testing conducted after the April 2025 updates confirmed that NotebookLM's performance...'

A Collaborative AI tutor with NotebookLM: Some Examples

Key Aspects

• Purpose: Illustrating Tutor Interaction: This section serves to provide concrete illustrations of the previously described collaborative AI tutor in action. It presents examples of simulated student-tutor interactions to demonstrate how the system applies its guided, step-by-step pedagogical methodology, which is based on Socratic and collaborative principles. The goal is to make the abstract implementation details more tangible by showing the tutor's behavior in specific problem-solving scenarios.
• Demonstration of Dual Operating Modes: The examples showcase the tutor's two distinct operational modes, as defined in the methodology. One example (DC circuit) demonstrates the tutor relying on the underlying Gemini model's general reasoning capabilities when no specific solution or guidance is available in its sources. The second example (block on cart) shows the tutor utilizing curated instructions provided within its source documents to guide the analysis along a specific path (inertial frame, avoiding fictitious forces).
• Addressing LLM Response Variability: The authors acknowledge a key characteristic of Large Language Models (LLMs) like the one powering NotebookLM: their probabilistic nature, meaning responses can vary even for identical prompts. To account for this inherent variability and gain a more robust understanding of the tutor's typical behavior and capabilities, the presented interactions were derived from repeating the same questions multiple times. This adds a layer of methodological consideration to the qualitative examples.
• Example 1: DC Circuit (Unguided Reasoning): The first example involves a qualitative physics problem concerning a simple DC circuit, for which no solution was provided in the tutor's sources. The dialogue illustrates the tutor guiding the student step-by-step, starting with foundational concepts like Ohm's Law and applying them to the parallel circuit configuration. This example highlights the tutor's ability to engage in Socratic dialogue and leverage its general physics knowledge when specific guidance is absent.
• Example 2: Block on Cart (Guided Reasoning): The second example features a problem about a block accelerating with a cart, where specific instructions were included in NotebookLM's source materials. These instructions directed the tutor to analyze the situation from an inertial reference frame and focus on real forces (gravity, normal force, friction) according to Newton's laws, explicitly avoiding fictitious forces. The dialogue demonstrates the tutor adhering to these constraints and guiding the student through force identification and analysis based on the curated pedagogical approach.
• Overall Demonstration of Grounded Collaboration: Collectively, the examples aim to demonstrate the effectiveness of the implemented approach, particularly the role of grounding the AI's responses. By relying on reliable, teacher-curated content (either specific problem guidance or the general Training Manual), NotebookLM is shown to function as a collaborative partner that promotes active learning within a controlled environment. This reinforces the paper's central thesis about the value of RAG for creating reliable educational AI tools.

Strengths

• Concrete Illustration of Methodology

  The section effectively uses concrete examples of student-tutor interactions to illustrate the practical application of the AI tutor's methodology, making the previously described concepts (Socratic approach, step-by-step guidance) tangible.

  "Having detailed the implementation of the collaborative AI tutor, we now present illustrative examples of its interaction with students." (Page 6)
• Demonstration of Dual Operating Modes

  The examples clearly demonstrate the tutor's ability to function in its two primary modes: relying on its underlying model's reasoning when no curated solution is provided (DC circuit example) and following specific guidance from source materials (block on cart example).

  "These examples demonstrate the AI tutor applying its guided, step-by-step methodology both for problems with curated solutions within its sources and for problems requiring reliance on its underlying Gemini model 2019s reasoning capabilities." (Page 6)
• Acknowledges LLM Probabilistic Nature

  The authors explicitly acknowledge the probabilistic nature of LLM responses and mention repeating questions to account for variability, adding a layer of methodological awareness to the presentation of examples.

  "It is important to note that NotebookLM, in accordance with the inherent statistical nature of LLMs, exhibits probabilistic response generation [1, 14]. This means that when the same prompt is presented multiple times, the outputs are not always identical." (Page 6)
• Connects Examples to Overall Argument

  The concluding statement of the section effectively summarizes how the examples support the central argument: grounding responses in curated content enables NotebookLM to function as a collaborative tool promoting active learning.

  "These examples demonstrate that by grounding responses in reliable, teacher-curated content, NotebookLM effectively functions as an AI physics collaborator 2014promoting active learning while maintaining a controlled and customizable interaction environment." (Page 8)

Suggestions for Improvement

• Enhance Analysis of Dialogue Snippets

  This medium-impact improvement would enhance the section's analytical depth and better fulfill its stated intention. The 'Examples' section promises to analyze dialogue snippets to highlight behavior and alignment with pedagogy, but primarily presents the dialogues with minimal explicit analysis. Adding brief analytical comments after key exchanges would strengthen the paper by clearly demonstrating how specific tutor responses embody the intended Socratic/collaborative principles (e.g., identifying specific questioning techniques, scaffolding moves, or use of student input) rather than leaving the interpretation largely to the reader. This belongs in the Examples section as it directly pertains to interpreting the presented interaction data.

  "We will analyze snippets of dialogue to highlight key aspects of the tutor 2019s behavior and its alignment with the intended pedagogical approach." (Page 6)

  Implementation: Following key exchanges within the dialogue snippets (e.g., after a tutor's guiding question or corrective feedback), insert 1-2 sentences of analysis. For instance, after NotebookLM asks about Ohm's Law (p6), add: 'Here, the tutor initiates the Socratic process by prompting recall of a fundamental principle before applying it.' After the tutor corrects the student on the normal force direction (p8), add: 'The tutor validates the correct parts of the student's response while gently redirecting focus to the misconception, a key collaborative technique.'

Non-Text Elements

Figure 4. Schematic of the DC circuit with two parallel resistors discussed in...

Full Caption

Figure 4. Schematic of the DC circuit with two parallel resistors discussed in the problem.

Figure/Table Image (Page 7)

First Reference in Text

The following problem example involves a block resting against the back interior wall of an accelerating cart (see Figure 5).

Description

• Diagram Type: DC Circuit Schematic: Figure 4 shows a 'schematic diagram', which is a simplified drawing used in electronics and physics to represent an electrical circuit. This specific diagram illustrates a 'Direct Current (DC) circuit'. DC means the electric current flows consistently in one direction. Think of it like water flowing steadily through a pipe in one way only.
• Power Source (Battery/EMF): The circuit contains a power source, represented by the symbol 'E'. This symbol, with one long and one short parallel line, typically denotes a battery or a source of 'electromotive force' (EMF), which is essentially the voltage or electrical pressure provided by the source to drive the current. No specific voltage value is given, it's represented symbolically as 'E'.
• Resistors (R1 and R2): Two 'resistors', labeled R1 and R2, are included in the circuit. A resistor is a component designed to impede the flow of electric current, converting electrical energy into heat. They are represented by zigzag line symbols. The values of the resistances are not specified numerically, only symbolically as R1 and R2.
• Parallel Connection: The resistors R1 and R2 are connected in 'parallel'. This means the current flowing from the battery splits, with some going through R1 and the rest going through R2, before recombining to return to the battery. Imagine a river splitting into two separate streams that later merge back together – that's analogous to a parallel connection. In a parallel circuit, both resistors experience the same voltage across them (equal to the battery voltage E, assuming ideal wires).
• Connecting Wires: The components are connected by straight lines, which represent ideal conducting wires with negligible resistance.

Scientific Validity

• Correct Representation of Parallel Circuit: The schematic correctly depicts a standard parallel circuit configuration with two resistors connected across a DC voltage source according to established conventions in electrical circuit theory.
• Standard Symbol Usage: The symbols used for the battery (EMF source E) and resistors (R1, R2) are standard and accurately represent these components in circuit diagrams.
• Appropriate Idealization: The diagram represents an idealized circuit, neglecting factors like wire resistance or internal resistance of the battery, which is appropriate for illustrating fundamental concepts in introductory physics problems as intended here.

Communication

• Clarity and Standard Symbols: The schematic diagram is clear and uses standard symbols for electrical components (battery/EMF source, resistors, wires), making it easily understandable to anyone familiar with basic circuit diagrams.
• Labeling Clarity: The labels 'R1', 'R2', and 'E' (representing electromotive force or battery voltage) are clearly placed next to the corresponding components.
• Caption Accuracy: The caption accurately describes the figure as a schematic of a DC circuit with two parallel resistors, aligning perfectly with the visual content.
• Reference Text Mismatch: The provided `reference_text` ('The following problem example involves a block resting against the back interior wall of an accelerating cart (see Figure 5).') is completely mismatched with Figure 4. It describes a mechanics problem and explicitly refers to Figure 5, not the circuit diagram shown in Figure 4. This indicates a significant error in the manuscript's referencing or figure placement relative to the text.
• Potential Enhancement (Minor): While standard, adding arrows to indicate the direction of conventional current flow could potentially enhance understanding for introductory learners, although it is not strictly necessary for this type of schematic.

Figure 5. A block remains stationary against the back wall of an accelerating...

Full Caption

Figure 5. A block remains stationary against the back wall of an accelerating cart. Problem adapted from [11].

Figure/Table Image (Page 8)

First Reference in Text

The following problem example involves a block resting against the back interior wall of an accelerating cart (see Figure 5).

Description

• Components Depicted: Figure 5 presents a simple line drawing illustrating a physics scenario. It shows a rectangular 'block' positioned inside a 'cart'. The cart is depicted as a larger rectangle with wheels underneath, resting on a horizontal surface.
• Block Position: The block is shown pressed against the vertical back wall (the left-side inner wall) of the cart.
• Indication of Motion (Acceleration): An arrow labeled 'a' points horizontally to the right, originating from the cart. This arrow represents 'acceleration', which means the cart is speeding up or changing its velocity in the direction of the arrow. The problem states the cart accelerates towards the right.
• Relative State of Block: The caption states the block 'remains stationary against the back wall'. This implies that relative to the cart, the block does not slide up or down the wall, even though the entire system (cart and block together) is accelerating to the right.

Scientific Validity

• Accurate Representation of Physical Scenario: The diagram accurately represents the physical setup described in the associated text and caption – a block held against the wall of an accelerating cart. This is a standard scenario used in introductory physics to explore concepts like Newton's laws, friction, and non-inertial reference frames (though the text specifies analysis from an inertial frame).
• Appropriate Level of Abstraction: The use of a simplified, schematic representation is appropriate for focusing on the relevant physical principles without unnecessary visual detail.
• Standard Physics Problem: The scenario, adapted from a textbook (reference [11]), represents a valid and commonly used physics problem.

Communication

• Clarity and Simplicity: The diagram is simple and clearly depicts the essential components of the physics problem: the cart, the block, and the direction of acceleration.
• Indication of Acceleration: The arrow labeled 'a' effectively indicates the direction of the cart's acceleration (to the right), which is crucial information for analyzing the forces involved.
• Caption Accuracy and Attribution: The caption accurately describes the scenario shown in the diagram and correctly attributes the problem's origin (adapted from [11]).
• Text-Figure Consistency: The figure directly supports the text describing the problem setup, providing a necessary visual aid for understanding the physical situation.
• Lack of Explicit Forces: While clear for setting up the problem, the diagram does not explicitly show the forces acting on the block (gravity, normal force from the back wall, friction force upwards). Adding a free-body diagram, either overlaid or separately, could be beneficial depending on the specific learning objective being addressed, although its absence here is acceptable for introducing the scenario.

Conclusions

Key Aspects

• Summary of Implemented AI Tutor and RAG Approach: The conclusion restates the core contribution: the implementation and demonstration of a collaborative AI physics tutor using Google's NotebookLM. It emphasizes the use of Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), grounded in teacher-provided sources and specific pedagogical guidelines ('Training Manual'), as the key methodological approach. This technique ensures responses are based on curated content, aiming to enhance reliability and educational relevance.
• Effectiveness and Practical Benefits: A key finding summarized is the system's effectiveness in supporting student problem-solving and promoting active learning within a controlled environment. The approach is presented as offering significant practical advantages for educators, being readily available, low-cost, and easily implementable. This positions the tool as a viable option for personalized AI-assisted learning leveraging current AI capabilities.
• Broader Utility of NotebookLM Platform: The conclusion reiterates that the NotebookLM platform possesses inherent value beyond the specific tutor configuration explored. Its features for indexing sources, generating study aids, and facilitating interaction make it a useful interactive study and research tool for both educators and students independently. This highlights the broader applicability of the underlying platform.
• Acknowledged Limitations: The authors responsibly acknowledge significant limitations impacting the current implementation and technology. These include practical deployment constraints due to age restrictions (preventing K-12 use), the limitation of text-only interaction hindering visually-rich pedagogies, and the inherent statistical nature of AI models leading to potential inaccuracies. Acknowledging these constraints provides a balanced perspective on the current state of the tool.
• Future Research Directions: The conclusion points towards future research directions focused on overcoming the identified limitations. Specifically, enhancing multimodal interaction capabilities (beyond static images and text) and improving model reliability are highlighted as important areas for development. The rapid pace of AI progress is noted as a factor that might mitigate some current limitations over time.
• Overall Assessment and Promising Model: Despite the limitations, the conclusion asserts that the demonstrated approach represents a promising model for developing grounded, collaborative AI learning assistants. It reaffirms the value of using RAG and curated content to create more reliable and pedagogically sound AI tools for education. This final statement underscores the potential significance of the presented work.

Strengths

• Effective Synthesis of Work

  The conclusion effectively synthesizes the core elements of the study: the tool (NotebookLM), the methodology (RAG grounded in curated sources and pedagogical guidelines), and the primary outcome (support for student problem-solving and active learning).

  "This work presents a collaborative AI physics tutor implemented using Google 2019s NotebookLM. By employing Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) grounded in teacher-provided sources and pedagogical guidelines (the 2019Training Manual 2019), the system effectively supports student problem-solving and active learning in a controlled environment." (Page 8)
• Highlights Practical Benefits

  The section clearly articulates the practical benefits of the proposed approach, highlighting its accessibility, low cost, and ease of implementation as valuable attributes for educators.

  "This approach offers educators a readily available, low-cost, and easily implementable platform for personalized AI-assisted learning, leveraging modern AI capabilities." (Page 8)
• Reiterates Broader Tool Value

  The conclusion appropriately reiterates the broader utility of NotebookLM beyond the specific tutor application, positioning it as a valuable interactive study and research tool for both educators and students.

  "Furthermore, beyond the specific tutor application explored here, it is worth noting that the NotebookLM platform itself offers valuable features for educators and students as an interactive study and research tool, independent of the specific configuration discussed." (Page 8)
• Acknowledges Limitations Candidly

  The authors demonstrate scientific rigor by candidly acknowledging the key limitations of the current implementation and underlying technology, including platform access restrictions, text-based interaction constraints, and inherent AI model reliability issues.

  "However, several limitations must be acknowledged regarding the current implementation and the underlying technology. Firstly, practical deployment... Secondly, the primarily text-based nature... Finally, the system inherits the intrinsic statistical nature..." (Page 8)
• Identifies Future Research Directions

  The conclusion appropriately points towards future research directions, specifically identifying the need to address limitations concerning multimodal interaction and model reliability.

  "Addressing the identified limitations, particularly regarding multimodal interaction and model reliability, represents important directions for future research." (Page 9)

Suggestions for Improvement

• Strengthen Link Between Limitations and Future Work

  This low-impact suggestion aims to slightly enhance the connection between the study's findings and future work. The Conclusions section identifies limitations and points to future research but could more explicitly frame the act of addressing these specific limitations as the primary focus of the proposed future work. This refinement belongs in the Conclusions as it pertains to summarizing the study's implications and outlook.

  "Addressing the identified limitations, particularly regarding multimodal interaction and model reliability, represents important directions for future research." (Page 9)

  Implementation: Modify the sentence introducing future research to more directly link it to overcoming the stated limitations. Instead of 'Addressing the identified limitations... represents important directions for future research,' consider phrasing like: 'Future research should prioritize addressing the identified limitations, particularly concerning multimodal interaction and model reliability, to further enhance the platform's educational potential.'

• Refine Final Statement to Reflect Pedagogical Approach

  This low-impact improvement would subtly strengthen the concluding statement. The final sentence effectively summarizes the promise of the approach but could be slightly enhanced by explicitly referencing the type of assistant demonstrated (e.g., Socratic, collaborative). This addition belongs in the Conclusions section as it reinforces the specific nature of the contribution summarized.

  "Nevertheless, the approach shown provides a promising model for creating grounded, collaborative AI learning assistants." (Page 9)

  Implementation: In the final sentence, add a descriptor reflecting the tutor's pedagogical style. Instead of '...provides a promising model for creating grounded, collaborative AI learning assistants,' consider: '...provides a promising model for creating grounded, collaborative AI learning assistants capable of Socratic-style guidance.' or '...provides a promising model for creating grounded, collaborative AI learning assistants that facilitate active learning through guided inquiry.'