Agent4Edu: Generating Learner Response Data by Generative Agents for Intelligent Education Systems

2026-05-28T15:20:40Z

Personalized learning represents a promising educational strategy within intelligent educational systems, aiming to enhance learners' practice efficiency. However, the discrepancy between offline metrics and online performance significantly impedes their progress. To address this challenge, we introduce Agent4Edu, a novel personalized learning simulator leveraging recent advancements in human intelligence through large language models (LLMs). Agent4Edu features LLM-powered generative agents equipped with learner profile, memory, and action modules tailored to personalized learning algorithms. The learner profiles are initialized using real-world response data, capturing practice styles and cognitive factors. Inspired by human psychology theory, the memory module records practice facts and high-level summaries, integrating reflection mechanisms. The action module supports various behaviors, including exercise understanding, analysis, and response generation. Each agent can interact with personalized learning algorithms, such as computerized adaptive testing, enabling a multifaceted evaluation and enhancement of customized services. Through a comprehensive assessment, we explore the strengths and weaknesses of Agent4Edu, emphasizing the consistency and discrepancies in responses between agents and human learners. The code, data, and appendix are publicly available at https://github.com/bigdata-ustc/Agent4Edu.

Who Am I? History-Aware Profiles for Student Simulation in Tutoring Dialogues

2026-05-28T15:02:51Z

A key part of developing large language model (LLM)-powered, automated tutoring tools is student simulation, i.e., using LLMs to role-play as students, which can facilitate tutor model evaluation and training. Existing work mostly focuses on within-dialogue simulation, which lacks context on student knowledge and behavior, partly due to not grounding in past student question-answering or dialogue interactions. In this work, we introduce the task of history-conditioned student simulation, where the goal is to accurately predict student dialogue turns by leveraging information in the student's learning history. We propose a two-component framework in which a profile generator summarizes a student's history and a simulator predicts student turns conditioned on the resulting profile. We train both components with reinforcement learning (RL), yielding profiles optimized for faithful student simulation. We evaluate our method and baselines on the first-of-its-kind real-world dataset of student dialogues and question responses that we collect from a math learning platform. Extensive experiments show that our method significantly outperforms baselines, and demonstrate the importance of history, profiles, and RL training.

Steering at the Source: Style Modulation Heads for Robust Persona Control

2026-05-28T14:47:48Z

Activation steering offers a computationally efficient mechanism for controlling Large Language Models (LLMs) without fine-tuning. While effectively controlling target traits (e.g., persona), coherency degradation remains a major obstacle to safety and practical deployment. We hypothesize that this degradation stems from intervening on the residual stream, which indiscriminately affects aggregated features and inadvertently amplifies off-target noise. In this work, we identify a sparse subset of attention heads (only three heads) that independently govern persona and style formation, which we term Style Modulation Heads. Specifically, these heads can be localized via geometric analysis of internal representations, combining layer-wise cosine similarity and head-wise contribution scores. We demonstrate that intervention targeting only these specific heads achieves robust behavioral control while significantly mitigating the coherency degradation observed in residual stream steering. More broadly, our findings show that precise, component-level localization enables safer and more precise model control.

When Should AI Read the Room? Public Perceptions of Social Intelligence in AI Agents

2026-05-28T13:49:47Z

AI researchers have been advancing socially intelligent AI agents (Social-AI) across embodiments, from chatbots to physical robots. As Social-AI is increasingly deployed in everyday settings, decisions about the roles these agents should play will depend on how laypeople perceive them. However, public perceptions of social intelligence in AI agents and the acceptability of these agents remain largely understudied. We present a mixed-methods survey of adults in the United States (N=200) that examines social intelligence as a perceived construct in AI agents. Our survey investigates the extent to which participants believe current AI agents have social intelligence, abilities of agents that participants associate with social intelligence, contextual factors influencing participant acceptance of Social-AI agents, and concerns participants hold about these technologies. Participants widely reported having already encountered AI agents they perceived as socially intelligent and grounded their judgments in observable behaviors, more than beliefs about AI agency or intent. We identified a support-adoption gap in acceptability judgments: participants supported the existence of Social-AI agents for others far more than for their own personal use. Our analysis uncovers layperson concerns about Social-AI, informing AI governance regarding appropriate deployment contexts, agent roles, and risks to end users.

Is Your LLM Overcharging You? Tokenization, Transparency, and Incentives

2026-05-28T12:43:49Z

State-of-the-art large language models require specialized hardware and substantial energy to operate. As a consequence, cloud-based services that provide access to large language models have become very popular. In these services, the price users pay for an output provided by a model depends on the number of tokens the model uses to generate it: they pay a fixed price per token. In this work, we show that this pricing mechanism creates a financial incentive for providers to strategize and misreport the (number of) tokens a model used to generate an output, and users cannot prove, or even know, whether a provider is overcharging them. However, we also show that, if an unfaithful provider is obliged to be transparent about the generative process used by the model, misreporting optimally without raising suspicion is hard. Nevertheless, as a proof-of-concept, we develop an efficient heuristic algorithm that allows providers to significantly overcharge users without raising suspicion. Crucially, we demonstrate that the cost of running the algorithm is lower than the additional revenue from overcharging users, highlighting the vulnerability of users under the current pay-per-token pricing mechanism. Further, we show that, to eliminate the financial incentive to strategize, a pricing mechanism must price tokens linearly on their character count. While this makes a provider's profit margin vary across tokens, we introduce a simple prescription under which the provider who adopts such an incentive-compatible pricing mechanism can maintain the average profit margin they had under the pay-per-token pricing mechanism. Along the way, to illustrate and complement our theoretical results, we conduct experiments with several large language models from the $\texttt{Llama}$, $\texttt{Gemma}$ and $\texttt{Ministral}$ families, and input prompts from the LMSYS Chatbot Arena platform.

Auditing LLM Editorial Bias in News Media Exposure

2026-05-28T12:06:03Z

Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly act as gateways to web content, shaping how millions of users encounter online information. Unlike traditional search engines, whose retrieval and ranking mechanisms are well studied, the selection processes of web-connected LLMs add layers of opacity to how answers are generated. By determining which news outlets users see, these systems can influence public opinion, reinforce echo chambers, and pose risks to civic discourse and public trust. This work extends two decades of research in algorithmic auditing to examine how LLMs function as news engines. We present the first audit comparing three leading agents, GPT-4o-Mini, Claude-3.7-Sonnet, and Gemini-2.0-Flash, against Google News, asking: \textit{How do LLMs differ from traditional aggregators in the diversity, ideology, and reliability of the media they expose to users?} Across 24 global topics, we find that, compared to Google News, LLMs surface significantly fewer unique outlets and allocate attention more unevenly. In the same way, GPT-4o-Mini emphasizes more factual and right-leaning sources; Claude-3.7-Sonnet favors institutional and civil-society domains and slightly amplifies right-leaning exposure; and Gemini-2.0-Flash exhibits a modest left-leaning tilt without significant changes in factuality. These patterns remain robust under prompt variations and alternative reliability benchmarks. Together, our findings show that LLMs already enact \textit{agentic editorial policies}, curating information in ways that diverge from conventional aggregators. Understanding and governing their emerging editorial power will be critical for ensuring transparency, pluralism, and trust in digital information ecosystems.

Information Security in Small-Scale Protests: Surveillance of Ugandan Anti-EACOP Protesters

2026-05-28T08:55:17Z

We examine the information security practices of Ugandan climate activists protesting the development of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). We conducted five-week fieldwork in Kampala, Uganda, which included interviews with 13 anti-EACOP activists. Through an inductive analysis, we report on the complexities faced by small groups of predominantly student protesters as they covertly organise small-scale anti-EACOP protests within a context marked by state surveillance and repression. Our study points to a multi-layered adversarial landscape, where participants' experiences of direct threats, including arrests and information compromise, and their fears of abduction, shaped their security practices. These practices were rooted in autonomous decision-making within groups. We present a grounded understanding of how participants' need to protect information for their own security, as well as that of others, permeated their lives, leading them to adjust day-to-day aspects of their device management, communication, accommodation, transport and social relations as deliberate tactics to mitigate surveillance.

Evaluating Reliability Asymmetries in Chinese Factual Search and AI Answers

2026-05-28T07:37:27Z

Search engines and AI-powered systems increasingly mediate access to factual information, yet their reliability remains difficult to evaluate in realistic information-seeking settings. We study this problem in the Chinese web ecosystem by constructing a query-based fact-checking dataset from real Chinese search logs and comparing nine systems across traditional search engines, standalone large language models, and search-integrated AI Overviews. Focusing on factual Chinese-language factual Yes/No questions, we evaluate whether systems provide correct, incorrect, or uncertain decisions against evidence-derived ground truth. We find that systems are similarly accurate when they provide definitive answers, but differ sharply in how often they do so. Conditional accuracy ranges from 73.2% to 78.9%, yet search engines answer definitively on over 83% of queries, while Qwen-Max does so on fewer than half. We also find a consistent polarity gap: all systems perform better on yes-labeled queries than on no-labeled queries. We also use Baidu Index data to identify Chinese provinces with higher health-related search attention, which may indicate greater potential exposure to misinformation. Overall, our results show that reliability depends not only on whether systems are correct when they answer, but also on how often they answer, how they handle negative claims, and where information demand may increase exposure risks.

The New Pro Se: Generative AI and the Surge in Federal Civil Self-Representation

2026-05-28T07:19:09Z

Since public access to generative AI tools became widespread, federal civil litigation has seen a marked increase in pro se (self-represented) plaintiffs. This paper analyzes that shift using ~2.8 million filings, asking whether the post-GenAI period is associated not only with more pro se filings, but also with detectable changes in complaint text, litigation outcomes, and the composition of pro se litigants. Using civil filing data from FY2008-2025, we find that the federal civil pro se plaintiff rate rose from 11.33% pre-GenAI to 16.94% post-GenAI, a 5.61 percentage-point increase that persists after trend and covariate-adjusted robustness checks. We then focus on Civil Rights and Other Statutory cases, where the increase is especially pronounced, and link case metadata to pro se complaints. Drawing on stylometric AI detection indicators, we develop an interpretable measure of AI-consistent drafting. Against a threshold calibrated to the pre-GenAI baseline, the net AI-flagged share is 13.9% of post-GenAI non-form complaints. Analysis of the AI-flagged complaints shows that they are more citation-dense, disproportionately associated with first-time rather than repeat filers, and geographically unevenly distributed. This composition pattern suggests that AI-consistent drafting is not merely a repeat-filer phenomenon; it also includes a modest, suggestive increase in name-inferred female plaintiffs. We find no evidence of improved win rates; in fact, AI-flagged complaints are more likely to be dismissed and to terminate at earlier procedural phases. These findings raise new questions about access to justice and court screening burdens, and sharpen the distinction between legal formality and legal efficacy.

Inform, Coach, Relate, Listen: Auditing LLM Caregiving Support Roles

2026-05-28T07:04:56Z

Language models are increasingly being deployed for conversational support in informal caregiving contexts, where interactions often extend beyond information-seeking: caregivers seek emotional reassurance, guidance, and help, while navigating uncertain, relationally complex care decisions. Yet most safety evaluations assess model behavior under generic prompts, leaving a critical question unexamined: does a model's safety profile change with its support role? We study this by operationalizing four expert-reviewed support roles grounded in social support theory: Inform, Coach, Relate, and Listen, and comparing them against two baseline controls: a basic prompting condition and a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) condition. We evaluate across three language models (GPT-4o-mini, Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, and MedGemma-1.5-4b-it) on 5,000 real-world queries from online Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD) communities. We find that the LLM's support role systematically shapes both the prevalence and composition of interactional risks. Furthermore, a human evaluation study reveals a perceived quality--safety tension: more directive, information-oriented roles are rated as more helpful and trustworthy despite exhibiting elevated interactional risk profiles. We release ~90,000 support role-conditioned model responses with risk annotations as an ecologically grounded resource for research on safer LLM-mediated conversational support.

Explaining Rankings with Hidden Group Bonuses

2026-05-28T06:36:11Z

Determining a linear utility function that correlates with observed candidate rankings is a foundational problem with applications in domains such as admissions, hiring, and recommendation systems, e.g., [Storandt and Funke, AAAI'19, Zhang et al., KDD'23, Wang et al., ICDE'24 (best paper award), Chen and Wong, VLDB'24]. Traditionally, these models assume full visibility into the feature sets used to determine the utility score. However, real-world scenarios often involve sensitive attributes that are hidden or partially observed, yet may influence outcomes through additive bonuses designed to promote fairness, as in [Gale and Marian, ICDE'24]. Motivated by such practical concerns, we study a variant of the ranking explanation problem where sensitive features are unobserved but may influence candidate rankings through group-specific linear boosts. We present a formal framework for modeling this problem and develop an algorithmic solution that leverages constraint satisfaction and automated reasoning techniques to jointly infer the linear scoring parameters and latent group bonuses consistent with the observed rankings. We further show that determining a satisfying linear function with group-specific bonuses is \textsf{NP}-hard in general, but when the feature dimension and the number of groups are constant, the problem admits a polynomial-time solution. Our approach is the first to address this nuanced variant, which captures key real-world challenges in fair ranking and admission systems. We perform extensive experiments on both real-world and synthetic datasets, demonstrating that our method effectively recovers hidden bonus structures and provides faithful explanations of observed ranking outcomes.

Offloading Score: Measuring AI Reliance Through Counterfactual Workflows

2026-05-28T05:44:31Z

AI tools are increasingly integrated into real-world workflows. However, existing measures of reliance on these tools focus on AI output adoption or on self-reported indicators, rather than how task effort is distributed between users and tools. Here, we introduce offloading score, a measure of reliance that quantifies the fraction of cognitive effort offloaded to an AI tool. Offloading Score is simulation-based -- we construct a counterfactual workflow by estimating how the user would have completed the task without the tool, and then computing the fraction of steps saved by using the tool. We validate offloading score through intrinsic evaluations of metric validity, and a controlled user study ($n=40$) with developers performing programming tasks using AI tools. We vary time pressure to test whether reliance measures capture the known increase in reliance under time pressure. We show that offloading score detects significantly higher reliance in time-constrained settings ($+43\%$, $p=0.018$), while usage-based and self-reported baseline measures of reliance do not distinguish the conditions. We complement this with descriptive insights showing that higher reliance manifests as greater delegation of subtasks to the tool and more direct reuse of AI outputs. Finally, we demonstrate an approach of using offloading score in combination with target outcomes of a task (e.g., code understanding) to identify when reliance may be (in)appropriate. Our framework offers two contributions: an instrument users can apply to measure and reflect on their own reliance, and a quantitative signal that agent designers can utilize to mitigate overreliance.

Attention Asymmetry in AI Layoff Discourse on X: A Computational Analysis of Capital vs Labour Amplification

2026-05-28T05:09:33Z

When workers lose jobs to AI-driven restructuring, two very different conversations happen on X (formerly Twitter) at the same time. Tech executives and AI researchers talk about productivity, transformation, and opportunity. Laid-off workers and labour critics talk about job loss, uncertainty, and fear. This paper asks a simple question: which conversation gets more reach? We report three studies using two collection methods and 763 tweets from 20 named public accounts. Study 1 used keyword-based collection (n=392) and found no significant difference between corpora (p=0.891), revealing that keyword search is too noisy for this task. Study 2 used account-based collection (n=96) and found a 3.12x mean amplification advantage for capital discourse over labour discourse (p=0.000003, Cohen's d=0.555). Study 3 combined both methods (n=763) and confirmed the finding at 4.18x mean and 10.77x median amplification ratio (p<0.000001). Critically, after normalising for follower count, the asymmetry persists at 2.69x (p=0.000009, Cohen's d=0.491), demonstrating that the effect is not simply a consequence of capital accounts having larger audiences. The finding is robust across all tested amplification metric weightings. We introduce the Amplification Ratio and Amplification Normalisation Index as simple metrics for measuring platform-level discourse inequality. A cross-platform replication on Reddit (n=647 posts) did not replicate the finding, suggesting the asymmetry may be specific to X's account-based amplification architecture. We discuss the methodological implications for cross-platform discourse analysis.

Does Distributed Training Undermine Compute Governance?

2026-05-28T04:58:12Z

Compute governance proposals often rely on the assumption that frontier AI training requires large, detectable computing clusters. However, recent advances in distributed training algorithms could allow developers to conduct frontier-scale training on distributed agglomerations of hardware, rather than needing large datacenter facilities. Developers who prefer not to be constrained by regulations may structure their hardware in a manner that evades the registration and monitoring requirements associated with compute governance. Therefore, regulations must be designed to detect and prevent illicit distributed training operations. This paper evaluates the feasibility of such evasion and outlines recommended countermeasures, including whistleblowing, chip tracking, forensic accounting, and memory and compute thresholds for clusters.

BIRDS: Characterizing and Understanding Biodiversity Impact of Large Language Model Serving

2026-05-28T02:27:06Z

Large language model (LLM) serving creates environmental impacts beyond carbon and water, including ecosystem damage through biodiversity-related pathways. We present BIRDS, a framework for Biodiversity Impact of Request-Driven LLM Serving. BIRDS defines request-level functional units, quantifies operational and embodied biodiversity impact, and introduces Quality-Normalized Biodiversity Impact (QNBI) to jointly analyze ecological impact and response quality. Across diverse workloads, models, GPUs, and regions, BIRDS reveals that biodiversity impact accumulates at scale and exposes actionable quality-aware serving tradeoffs.