arXiv:2606. 28749v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Although most undergraduates now use large language models (LLMs), a form of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) for academic writing, no validated method distinguishes the qualitatively different ways students rely on them.
By Shahin Hossain
The study investigates how generative AI (GenAI) affects student learning in AI-related courses, using survey data from 118 students across 12 courses. Four distinct user clusters were identified—high-use, light-use, and two moderate-use groups—each showing varying benefits and reliance patterns. The research highlights that early reliance, evaluation literacy, and instructor policies significantly influence perceived academic benefits and negative impacts, underscoring the need for institutional policies to address inequities in AI use.
By Lydia Manikonda, Mei Si, Sirajam Munira, Oshani Seneviratne, Kristin Bennett
arXiv:2605. 21629v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: How much have students' ordinary learning processes shifted in response to generative AI, and how does that affect their durable learning outcomes?
By Sina Rismanchian, Hasan Uzun, Jeffrey Matayoshi, Eric Cosyn, Eyad Kurd-Misto
The study examines how Large Language Models (LLMs) can exhibit an ‘inertia of confidence’, giving incorrect legal verdicts with high certainty, and tests this on Indian Contract Act cases. Phase I audits ChatGPT, Meta AI, and Perplexity AI, introducing the High‑Confidence Error Rate (HCER) to measure dangerous certainty, finding Meta AI most prone to errors. Phase II surveys 380 Indian law students, revealing that exposure to hallucinated citations increases verification efforts but most students lack formal ethical AI training.
By Angel Mary John, Vipin Kumar Singh, Jerrin Thomas Panachakel
arXiv:2609.00549v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large Language Model (LLM) agents increasingly rely on external skills, yet standard evaluations obscure whether retrieving these skills actually helps...
By Seonghyeon Cho, Chanjun Park
arXiv:2606. 01375v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly entering students' learning practices, but their educational value depends on whether they support reasoning or enable task completion without engagement.
By Mohammad Amanlou, Yasaman Amou-Jafari, Mehrad Livian, Fatemeh Boloukazari, Fereshte Bagheri, Behnam Bahrak
Agent Skills augment large language model (LLM) agents with procedural knowledge at inference time, but current benchmarks rarely distinguish what a Skill says from how it is organized. We study this distinction through Progressive Disclosure, where a concise root file points agents to supporting resources on demand, and compare it with a normalized flat baseline.
arXiv:2606. 11543v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent Skills augment large language model (LLM) agents with procedural knowledge at inference time, but current benchmarks rarely distinguish what a Skill says from how it is organized.
By Zhiyu Chen, Zihan Guo, Bo Huang, Bingwei Lu, Jianghao Lin, Yuanjian Zhou, Weinan Zhang
The paper introduces the Agentic Adoption Index (AAI), a new measure of delegated exposure that captures whether workers actually commit tasks to AI within structured workflows. Using semantic embeddings of 888,000 agent skill specifications from GitHub and 18,000 O*NET task statements, the authors find that occupations with high delegation differ from those most vulnerable to pre-AI automation, that AAI correlates more with technical capability than with current LLM use, and that for lower‑educated occupations AAI rises with wages while it falls for higher‑educated, high‑earning workers. These patterns also appear in an independent corpus from the Manus Skills Marketplace.
By Hyeongjae Lee, Jihyang Cheon, Lanu Kim
arXiv:2606. 13734v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent evidence reported by Tully, Longoni, and Appel (2025) suggests that lower artificial intelligence (AI) literacy predicts greater receptivity toward AI.
By Hristo Inouzhe
The study investigates whether AI assistance leaves a temporal fingerprint in writing and programming tasks. By analyzing keystroke-level data from three corpora, the authors find that AI contributions appear in distinct bursts and that temporal patterns can almost perfectly distinguish wholesale delegation from authentic work, though ordinary collaboration remains hard to detect. The research suggests that process visibility could serve as a basis for academic integrity checks.
By Eduardo Davalos, Yike Zhang
arXiv:2605. 15850v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: In recent years, generative AI (GenAI) in educational settings has become ubiquitous in university students' daily lives, despite its potential to induce over-reliance, metacognitive disengagement, and diminished learning when used unrestrictedly.
By Janne Rotter, Pau Benazet i Montobbio, Davinia Hern\'andez-Leo