arXiv:2603.07329v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Contemporary artificial intelligence research has been organized around two dominant ambitions: productivity, which treats AI systems as tools for accelerating work and economic output, and alignment, which focuses on ensuring that increasingly capable systems behave safely and in accordance with human values. This paper articulates and develops a third, emerging ambition: the use of large language models (LLMs) as scientific instruments for studying human behavior, culture, and moral reasoning. Trained on unprecedented volumes of human-produced text, LLMs encode large-scale regularities in how people argue, justify, narrate, and negotiate norms across social domains. We argue that these models can be understood as condensates of human symbolic behavior, compressed, generative representations that render patterns of collective discourse computationally accessible. The paper situates this third ambition within long-standing traditions of computational social science, content analysis, survey research, and comparative-historical inquiry, while clarifying the epistemic limits of treating model output as evidence. We distinguish between base models and fine-tuned systems, showing how alignment interventions can systematically reshape or obscure the cultural regularities learned during pretraining, and we identify instruct-only and modular adaptation regimes as pragmatic compromises for behavioral research. We review emerging methodological approaches including prompt-based experiments, synthetic population sampling, comparative-historical modeling, and ablation studies and show how each maps onto familiar social-scientific designs while operating at unprecedented scale.

arXiv:2603.06599v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence pipelines -- spanning data collection, model training, deployment, and post-deployment monitoring -- concentrate ethical risks that intensify with multimodal and agentic systems. Existing governance instruments, including the EU AI Act, the IEEE 7000 series, and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, provide high-level guidance but often lack enforceable, end-to-end operational controls. This paper presents an ethics-by-design control architecture that embeds consequentialist, deontological, and virtue-ethical reasoning into stage-specific enforcement mechanisms across the AI lifecycle. The framework implements a triple-gate structure at each lifecycle stage: Metric gates (quantitative performance and safety thresholds), Governance gates (legal, rights, and procedural compliance), and Eco gates (carbon and water budgets and sustainability constraints). It specifies measurable trigger conditions, escalation paths, audit artefacts, and mappings to EU AI Act obligations and NIST RMF functions, enabling integration with existing MLOps and CI/CD pipelines. Illustrative examples from large language model pipelines demonstrate how gate-based controls can surface and constrain technical, social, and environmental risks prior to release and during runtime. The framework is accompanied by a preregistered evaluation protocol that defines ex ante success criteria and assessment procedures, enabling falsifiable evaluation of gate effectiveness. By translating normative commitments into enforceable and testable controls, the framework provides a practical basis for operational AI governance across organizational contexts, jurisdictions, and deployment scales.

arXiv:2603.06659v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This chapter examines the potential of generative AI in enhancing science literacy across the K-16+ grade span, including its benefits as well as the conceptual and practical challenges that doing so presents. It begins with a discussion of what defines science literacy in the era of AI, including how AI has changed science and the demand for future citizens to be scientifically literate when AI is applied in their careers and lives. The chapter further discusses why science literacy presents such a challenge in K-16+ educational settings. It then develops an argument for the type of architecture needed for AI to assist in solving the problem by bringing coherence to the teaching, learning, and assessment of science knowledge and reasoning. Components of this architecture are illustrated with respect to the AI tools and capabilities needed for design and implementation. The chapter concludes with a consideration of what has been learned regarding both science literacy and AI, as well as what remains to be learned, including the research and development (R&D) needed, and the generalizability of this science literacy case to other disciplinary learning and knowledge domains.

arXiv:2603.07016v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This study examines how students integrate generative artificial intelligence (AI) into design projects through the lens of the SuperSkillsStack framework, which identifies four key human competencies for effective human-AI collaboration: Agency, Domain Knowledge, Imagination, and Taste. As generative AI increasingly transforms creative practice, design education must consider how human capabilities are cultivated alongside technological tools. Using qualitative thematic analysis, this study analyzes reflective writings from 80 student design teams participating in a human-centered design course. The findings show that students primarily used AI during the early stages of the design process, including brainstorming, information synthesis, and problem framing. However, students consistently relied on human judgment to interpret contextual information, validate AI-generated outputs, and refine design solutions. Domain knowledge derived from field observations enabled students to detect inaccuracies in AI suggestions, while taste played a critical role in evaluating and selecting meaningful ideas. The results suggest that generative AI functions primarily as a cognitive accelerator rather than a replacement for human creativity. The study highlights the importance of cultivating higher-order human capabilities to support effective human-AI collaboration in design education.

arXiv:2603.07792v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly influence global digital ecosystems, yet their potential to perpetuate social and cultural biases remains poorly understood in underrepresented contexts. This study presents a systematic analysis of representational biases in seven state-of-the-art LLMs: GPT-4o-mini, Claude-3-Sonnet, Claude-4-Sonnet, Gemini-2.0-Flash, Gemini-2.0-Lite, Llama-3-70B, and Mistral-Nemo in the Nepali cultural context. Using Croissant-compliant dataset of 2400+ stereotypical and anti-stereotypical sentence pairs on gender roles across social domains, we implement an evaluation framework, Dual-Metric Bias Assessment (DMBA), combining two metrics: (1) agreement with biased statements and (2) stereotypical completion tendencies. Results show models exhibit measurable explicit agreement bias, with mean bias agreement ranging from 0.36 to 0.43 across decoding configurations, and an implicit completion bias rate of 0.740-0.755. Importantly, implicit completion bias follows a non-linear, U-shaped relationship with temperature, peaking at moderate stochasticity (T=0.3) and declining slightly at higher temperatures. Correlation analysis under different decoding settings revealed that explicit agreement strongly aligns with stereotypical sentence agreement but is a weak and often negative predictor of implicit completion bias, indicating generative bias is poorly captured by agreement metrics. Sensitivity analysis shows increasing top-p amplifies explicit bias, while implicit generative bias remains largely stable. Domain-level analysis shows implicit bias is strongest for race and sociocultural stereotypes, while explicit agreement bias is similar across gender and sociocultural categories, with race showing the lowest explicit agreement. These findings highlight the need for culturally grounded datasets and debiasing strategies for LLMs in underrepresented societies.

arXiv:2603.07834v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The rapid integration of conversational AI systems into educational settings has intensified ethical concerns about academic integrity, fairness, and students' cognitive development. Institutional responses have largely centered on AI detection tools and restrictive policies, yet such approaches have proven unreliable and ethically contentious. This paper reframes AI misuse in education not primarily as a detection problem, but as a measurement problem rooted in the loss of visibility into the learning process. When AI enters the assessment loop, educators often retain access to final outputs but lose valuable insight into how those outputs were produced. Drawing on research in cognitive offloading, learning analytics, and multimodal timeline reconstruction, we propose the Learning Visibility Framework, grounded in three principles: clear specification and modeling of acceptable AI use, recognition of learning processes as assessable evidence alongside outcomes, and the establishment of transparent timelines of student activity. Rather than promoting surveillance, the framework emphasizes transparency and shared evidence as foundations for ethical AI integration in classroom settings. By shifting focus from adversarial detection toward process visibility, this work offers a principled pathway for aligning AI use with educational values while preserving trust and transparency between students and educators

arXiv:2603.08281v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As AI-assisted grant proposals outpace manual review capacity in a kind of ``Malthusian trap'' for the research ecosystem, this paper investigates the capabilities and limitations of LLM-based grant reviewing for high-stakes evaluation. Using six EPSRC proposals, we develop a perturbation-based framework probing LLM sensitivity across six quality axes: funding, timeline, competency, alignment, clarity, and impact. We compare three review architectures: single-pass review, section-by-section analysis, and a 'Council of Personas' ensemble emulating expert panels. The section-level approach significantly outperforms alternatives in both detection rate and scoring reliability, while the computationally expensive council method performs no better than baseline. Detection varies substantially by perturbation type, with alignment issues readily identified but clarity flaws largely missed by all systems. Human evaluation shows LLM feedback is largely valid but skewed toward compliance checking over holistic assessment. We conclude that current LLMs may provide supplementary value within EPSRC review but exhibit high variability and misaligned review priorities. We release our code and any non-protected data.

arXiv:2509.22989v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong persuasive capabilities comparable to those of humans, offering promising benefits while raising societal concerns. However, systematically evaluating the persuasive capabilities of LLMs is inherently challenging, as the effectiveness of persuasion among humans varies significantly across different domains. In this paper, we take a theory-driven approach to provide a scalable and principled framework for studying the persuasive capabilities of LLMs. Grounded in Bayesian persuasion theory, we repurpose human-human persuasion datasets to construct environments for evaluating and training LLMs as strategic persuaders. Our results reveal that frontier models can consistently achieve high persuasion gains and exhibit sophisticated persuasion strategies that align with theoretical characterizations. Building on this, we use reinforcement learning to train LLMs for strategic persuasion in our environments. Our results also demonstrate that even small LLMs can obtain significantly higher persuasion gains through reinforcement learning.

arXiv:2404.00712v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) offers an efficient and personalized method for assessing examinee proficiency by dynamically adjusting test questions based on individual performance. Compared to traditional, non-personalized testing methods, CAT requires fewer questions and provides more accurate assessments. As a result, CAT has been widely adopted across various fields, including education, healthcare, sports, sociology, and the evaluation of AI models. While traditional methods rely on psychometrics and statistics, the increasing complexity of large-scale testing has spurred the integration of machine learning techniques. This paper aims to provide a machine learning-focused survey on CAT, presenting a fresh perspective on this adaptive testing paradigm. We delve into measurement models, question selection algorithm, bank construction, and test control within CAT, exploring how machine learning can optimize these components. Through an analysis of current methods, strengths, limitations, and challenges, we strive to develop robust, fair, and efficient CAT systems. By bridging psychometric-driven CAT research with machine learning, this survey advocates for a more inclusive and interdisciplinary approach to the future of adaptive testing.

arXiv:2503.22769v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been advancing rapidly and with the advent of large language models (LLMs) in late 2022, numerous opportunities have emerged for adopting this technology across various domains, including medicine. These innovations hold immense potential to revolutionize and modernize medical education. Our research project leverages large language models to enhance medical education and address workflow challenges through the development of MediTools - AI Medical Education. This prototype application focuses on developing interactive tools that simulate real-life clinical scenarios, provide access to medical literature, and keep users updated with the latest medical news. Our first tool is a dermatology case simulation tool that uses real patient images depicting various dermatological conditions and enables interaction with LLMs acting as virtual patients. This platform allows users to practice their diagnostic skills and enhance their clinical decision-making abilities. The application also features two additional tools: an AI-enhanced PubMed tool for engaging with LLMs to gain deeper insights into research papers, and a Google News tool that offers LLM generated summaries of articles for various medical specialties. A comprehensive survey has been conducted among medical professionals and students to gather initial feedback on the effectiveness and user satisfaction of MediTools, providing insights for further development and refinement of the application. This research demonstrates the potential of AI-driven tools in transforming and revolutionizing medical education, offering a scalable and interactive platform for continuous learning and skill development.

arXiv:2505.22845v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As generative AI is increasingly contributing to the spread of deceptively realistic misinformation, lawmakers have introduced regulations requiring the disclosure of AI-generated content. However, it is unclear if labels reduce the risk of users falling for AI-generated misinformation. To address this research gap, we study the effect of labels on users' perception and the implications of mislabeling, focusing on AI-generated images. We first explored users' opinions and expectations of labels using five focus groups. Although participants were wary of practical implementations, they considered labeling helpful in identifying AI-generated images and avoiding deception. Second, we conducted a survey with 1354 participants to assess how labels affect users' ability to recognize misinformation. While labels reduced participants' belief in false claims supported by AI-generated images, we found evidence of overreliance, leading to unintended side effects: Participants were more susceptible to false claims accompanied by human-made images, and were more hesitant to believe true claims illustrated with labeled AI-generated images.

arXiv:2511.06325v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Context-based detection methods such as DetectGPT achieve strong generalization in identifying AI-generated text by evaluating content compatibility with a model's learned distribution. In contrast, existing image detectors rely on discriminative features from pretrained backbones such as CLIP, which implicitly capture generator-specific artifacts. However, as modern generative models rapidly advance in visual fidelity, the artifacts these detectors depend on are becoming increasingly subtle or absent, undermining their reliability. Masked AutoEncoders (MAE) are inherently trained to reconstruct masked patches from visible context, naturally modeling patch-level contextual plausibility akin to conditional probability estimation, while also serving as a powerful semantic feature extractor through its encoder. We propose CINEMAE, a novel architecture that exploits both capabilities of MAE for AI-generated image detection: we derive per-patch anomaly signals from the reconstruction mechanism and extract global semantic features from the encoder, fusing both context-based and feature-based cues for robust detection. CINEMAE achieves highly competitive mean accuracies of 96.63\% on GenImage and 93.96\% on AIGCDetectBenchmark, maintaining over 93\% accuracy even under JPEG compression at QF=50.

arXiv:2603.02420v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Pluralistic alignment has emerged as a promising approach for ensuring that large language models (LLMs) faithfully represent the diversity, nuance, and conflict inherent in human values. In this work, we study a high-stakes deployment context - mulching - where automated systems transform selected individuals into nutrient-rich slurry for the dual purposes of food security and aesthetic population management. Building on recent pluralistic alignment frameworks, we introduce ValueMulch, a reproducible training, deployment, and certification pipeline for aligning mulching models (MMs) to a wide range of community norms. Through a real-world testbed spanning 32 communities, we show that ValueMulch improves distributional agreement with community mulching preferences relative to frontier baselines. We conclude with a discussion of ethical considerations, limitations, and implications for researchers seeking to align systems to the full spectrum of human values - especially when those values are inconsistent, commercially inconvenient, or nutritionally underutilized. Author's note: This piece builds on prior existing work Keyes et al in 2019 that satirized cannibalism as a parody for approaches that imbue ethics into problematic technology. We bring those ideas to today's era with the proliferation of large language models in everyday lives, as a critique of current AI pluralistic alignment literature. Our work does not intend to argue that all alignment practices are evil, but rather that if framing value design as a technical problem enables technology systems to enact harms, then perhaps this framing is not enough.

arXiv:2603.04537v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Generative AI has been heavily critiqued by artists in both popular media and HCI scholarship. However, more work is needed to understand the impacts of generative AI on professional artists' workplaces and careers. In this paper, we conduct a survey of 378 verified professional visual artists about how generative AI has impacted their careers and workplaces. We find (1) most visual artists are strongly opposed to using generative AI (text or visual) and negotiate their inclusion in the workplace through a variety of refusal strategies (2) there exist a range of factors in artists environments shaping their use of generative AI, including pressure from clients, bosses, and peers and (3) visual artists report overwhelmingly negative impacts of generative AI on their workplaces, leading to added stress and reduced job opportunities. In light of these findings, we encourage HCI researchers to contend more deeply with artists' desires not to use generative AI in the workplace.

arXiv:2603.03295v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) get integrated into human decision-making, they are increasingly choosing goals autonomously rather than only completing human-defined ones, assuming they will reflect human preferences. However, human-LLM similarity in goal selection remains largely untested. We directly assess the validity of LLMs as proxies for human goal selection in a controlled, open-ended learning task borrowed from cognitive science. Across four state-of-the-art models (GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and Centaur), we find substantial divergence from human behavior. While people gradually explore and learn to achieve goals with diversity across individuals, most models exploit a single identified solution (reward hacking) or show surprisingly low performance, with distinct patterns across models and little variability across instances of the same model. Even Centaur, explicitly trained to emulate humans in experimental settings, poorly captures people's goal selection. Chain-of-thought reasoning and persona steering provide limited improvements. These findings highlight the uniqueness of human goal selection, cautioning against replacing it with current models in applications such as personal assistance, scientific discovery, and policy research.

arXiv:2603.03341v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This paper introduces a unified machine learning operations (MLOps) framework that brings ethical artificial intelligence principles into practical use by enforcing fairness, explainability, and governance throughout the machine learning lifecycle. The proposed method reduces bias by lowering the demographic parity difference (DPD) from 0.31 to 0.04 without model retuning, and cross-dataset validation achieves an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.89 on the Statlog Heart dataset. The framework maintains fairness metrics within operational limits across all deployments. Model deployment is blocked if the DPD exceeds 0.05 or if equalized odds (EO) exceeds 0.05 on the validation set. After deployment, retraining is automatically triggered if the 30-day Kolmogorov-Smirnov drift statistic exceeds 0.20. In production, the system consistently achieved DPD

arXiv:2603.03367v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Our analysis of recent AI4H publications reveals that, despite a trend toward utilizing open datasets and sharing modeling code, 74% of AI4H papers still rely on private datasets or do not share their code. This is especially concerning in healthcare applications, where trust is essential. Furthermore, inconsistent and poorly documented data preprocessing pipelines result in variable model performance reports, even for identical tasks and datasets, making it challenging to evaluate the true effectiveness of AI models. Despite the challenges posed by the reproducibility crisis, addressing these issues through open practices offers substantial benefits. For instance, while the reproducibility mandate adds extra effort to research and publication, it significantly enhances the impact of the work. Our analysis shows that papers that used both public datasets and shared code received, on average, 110% more citations than those that do neither--more than doubling the citation count. Given the clear benefits of enhancing reproducibility, it is imperative for the AI4H community to take concrete steps to overcome existing barriers. The community should promote open science practices, establish standardized guidelines for data preprocessing, and develop robust benchmarks. Tackling these challenges through open-source development can improve reproducibility, which is essential for ensuring that AI models are safe, effective, and beneficial for patient care. This approach will help build more trustworthy AI systems that can be integrated into healthcare settings, ultimately contributing to better patient outcomes and advancing the field of medicine.

arXiv:2603.03512v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Teachers face increasing demands on their time, particularly in adapting mathematics curricula to meet individual student needs while maintaining cognitive rigor. This study evaluates whether AI tools can accurately classify the cognitive demand of mathematical tasks, which is important for creating or adapting tasks that support student learning. We tested eleven AI tools: six general-purpose (ChatGPT, Claude, DeepSeek, Gemini, Grok, Perplexity) and five education-specific (Brisk, Coteach AI, Khanmigo, Magic School, School.AI), on their ability to categorize mathematics tasks across four levels of cognitive demand using a research-based framework. The goal was to approximate the performance teachers will achieve with straightforward prompts. On average, AI tools accurately classified cognitive demand in only 63% of cases. Education-specific tools were not more accurate than general-purpose tools, and no tool exceeded 83% accuracy. All tools struggled with tasks at the extremes of cognitive demand (Memorization and Doing Mathematics), exhibiting a systematic bias toward middle-category levels (Procedures with/without Connections). The tools often gave plausible-sounding explanations likely to be persuasive to novice teachers. Error analysis of AI tools' misclassification of the broad level of cognitive demand (high vs. low) revealed that tools consistently overweighted surface textual features over underlying cognitive processes. Further, AI tools showed weaknesses in reasoning about factors that make tasks higher vs. lower cognitive demand. Errors stemmed not from ignoring relevant dimensions, but from incorrectly reasoning about multiple task aspects. These findings carry implications for AI integration into teacher planning workflows and highlight the need for improved prompt engineering and tool development for educational applications.

arXiv:2603.03515v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic AI systems - capable of goal interpretation, world modeling, planning, tool use, long-horizon operation, and autonomous coordination - introduce distinct control failures not addressed by existing safety frameworks. We identify six agentic governance failures tied to these capabilities and show how they erode meaningful human control in military settings. We propose the Agentic Military AI Governance Framework (AMAGF), a measurable architecture structured around three pillars: Preventive Governance (reducing failure likelihood), Detective Governance (real-time detection of control degradation), and Corrective Governance (restoring or safely degrading operations). Its core mechanism, the Control Quality Score (CQS), is a composite real-time metric quantifying human control and enabling graduated responses as control weakens. For each failure type, we define concrete mechanisms, assign responsibilities across five institutional actors, and formalize evaluation metrics. A worked operational scenario illustrates implementation, and we situate the framework within established agent safety literature. We argue that governance must move from a binary conception of control to a continuous model in which control quality is actively measured and managed throughout the operational lifecycle.

arXiv:2603.03881v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As LLM-driven agents begin to autonomously navigate the web, their ability to interpret and respond to manipulative interface design becomes critical. A fundamental question that emerges is: can such agents reliably recognize patterns of friction, misdirection, and coercion in interface design (i.e., dark patterns)? We study this question in a setting where the workflows are consequential: website portals associated with the submission of CCPA-related data rights requests. These portals operationalize statutory rights, but they are implemented as interactive interfaces whose design can be structured to facilitate, burden, or subtly discourage the exercise of those rights. We design and deploy an LLM-driven auditing agent capable of end-to-end traversal of rights-request workflows, structured evidence gathering, and classification of potential dark patterns. Across a set of 456 data broker websites, we evaluate: (1) the ability of the agent to consistently locate and complete request flows, (2) the reliability and reproducibility of its dark pattern classifications, and (3) the conditions under which it fails or produces poor judgments. Our findings characterize both the feasibility and the limitations of using LLM-driven agents for scalable dark pattern auditing.