The study examined the impact of expert‑verified AI‑generated study materials on first‑year university economics students. In a two‑cohort difference‑in‑differences design, half of the 170 students received podcasts, FAQs, and quiz‑based guides that were produced by a source‑grounded model and checked by a graduate teaching assistant. The intervention produced a 2.34‑mark advantage on a 50‑mark component, reduced the share of marks below the upper‑second classification boundary by 24.7 percentage points, and had the largest gains for students in the bottom quintile. Interviews with 36 students suggested that the verification label encouraged engagement while preserving critical scrutiny of the AI output.
By Canh Thien Dang, An Nguyen
arXiv:2607. 20461v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Present implementations of artificial intelligence (AI) ethics do not adequately take feelings, or affect, into account.
By Jonny O'Dwyer, Malika Bendechache, Louise McCormack, Elif Calik, Ramin Ranjbarzadeh, Dost Muhammad, Shokofeh Anari Bozcheloei, Ishita Singh
arXiv:2607. 01934v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This work introduces AIriskEval-edu-db2, a new dataset designed to train and evaluate auditors based on LLMs for an explainable pedagogical risk assessment in instructional content for grades K-12.
By Javier Irigoyen, Roberto Daza, Francisco Jurado, Julian Fierrez, Ruben Tolosana, Alvaro Ortigosa, Enrique Blas, Aythami Morales
arXiv:2605. 03217v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in settings that require nuanced ethical reasoning, yet existing bias evaluations treat model outputs as simply "biased" or "unbiased.
By Yash Aggarwal, Atmika Gorti, Vinija Jain, Aman Chadha, Krishnaprasad Thirunarayan, Manas Gaur
arXiv:2603. 00048v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in sensitive applications including psychological support, healthcare, and high-stakes decision-making.
By Erica Coppolillo, Emilio Ferrara
This work introduces AIriskEval-edu-db2, a new dataset designed to train and evaluate auditors based on LLMs for an explainable pedagogical risk assessment in instructional content for grades K-12. The dataset comprises 1,639 explanations from 170 curated ScienceQA questions, covering science, language arts, and social sciences.
arXiv:2510. 16380v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As AI systems progress, we rely more on them to make decisions with us and for us.
By Yu Ying Chiu, Michael S. Lee, Rachel Calcott, Brandon Handoko, Paul de Font-Reaulx, Rapha\"el Milli\`ere, Paula Rodriguez, Chen Bo Calvin Zhang, Ziwen Han, Udari Madhushani Sehwag, Yash Maurya, Christina Q Knight, Harry R. Lloyd, Florence Bacus, Conor Downey, Mantas Mazeika, Bing Liu, Yejin Choi, Mitchell L Gordon, Sydney Levine
The paper reports the first empirical study comparing how humans and large language models (LLMs) evaluate perceived moral agency (PMA) in both human and autonomous artificial agents within smart city scenarios. Using a validated PMA scale, 190 human participants and various LLMs were assessed, revealing that humans are perceived to have higher moral agency than artificial agents. When confronted with moral dilemmas, LLMs focus on situational factors such as harm severity and urgency, mirroring the context‑sensitivity observed in human raters.
By Fernanda Mansilla, Aloysius Tok, Bahia Guella\"i, Farah Benamara, Nancy F. Chen
arXiv:2606. 15507v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Behavioral audits of Large Language Models on moral prompts measure what the model says, not the internal computation producing it.
By Ali Dasdan, Manan Shah, W. Russell Neuman, Chad Coleman, Kund Meghani, Safinah Ali
TutorTrace is a new dataset and behavioral abstraction pipeline that captures learners’ low‑level IDE telemetry to make their behavioral context visible and computable in real time. The dataset, collected across 480 students in two introductory Python courses, includes 180 K telemetry events, 13 633 behavioral segments, and 27 continuously computed metrics, and it underpins a taxonomy of learner activity before, between, and after AI queries. Preliminary classroom tests show that behavior‑aware prompts reduce the time between queries, and the system can predict upcoming queries with AUROC scores of .726 and .717 on two held‑out tasks.
By David Barron, Xiaohang Tang, Rezky Dwisantika, Minsun Kim, David H. Smith IV, Jiaming Cui, Yan Chen
arXiv:2604. 01114v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As generative AI systems are integrated into educational settings, students often encounter AI-generated output while working through learning tasks, either by requesting help or through integrated tools.
By Griffin Pitts, Neha Rani, Weedguet Mildort
The study tests deliberately biased AI assistants and finds that such bias improves human performance on tasks like misinformation evaluation, financial investment, and graduate education compared to neutral AI. However, participants undervalue biased AI and overvalue neutral AI, even when performance is similar. When two AI biases flank a participant’s perspective, performance gains are maintained while reducing the perceived cost and one‑sided influence.
By Shiyang Lai, Jiwoong Choi, Junsol Kim, Nadav Kunievsky, Yujin Potter, James Evans