This matching requires researchers to know the exact wording that other researchers previously used, creating a challenging process that could lead to missing relevant data. Large Language Models (LLMs) could enhance data discovery by removing this requirement and allowing researchers to ask questions with natural language. However, we do not currently know if researchers would accept LLMs for data discovery. Using a human-centered artificial intelligence (HCAI) focus, we ran focus groups (N = 27) to understand researchers' perspectives towards LLMs for data discovery. Our conceptual model shows that the potential benefits are not enough for researchers to use LLMs instead of current technology. Barriers prevent researchers from fully accepting LLMs, but features around transparency could overcome them. Using our model will allow developers to incorporate features that result in an increased acceptance of LLMs for data discovery.

Data from online job postings are difficult to access and are not built in a standard or transparent manner. Data included in the standard taxonomy and occupational information database (O*NET) are updated infrequently and based on small survey samples. We adopt O*NET as a framework for building natural language processing tools that extract structured information from job postings. We publish the Job Ad Analysis Toolkit (JAAT), a collection of open-source tools built for this purpose, and demonstrate its reliability and accuracy in out-of-sample and LLM-as-a-Judge testing. We extract more than 10 billion data points from more than 155 million online job ads provided by the National Labor Exchange (NLx) Research Hub, including O*NET tasks, occupation codes, tools, and technologies, as well as wages, skills, industry, and more features. We describe the construction of a dataset of occupation, state, and industry level features aggregated by monthly active jobs from 2015 - 2025. We illustrate the potential for research and future uses in education and workforce development.

The automatic evaluation of Language Model (LM) responses is a critical piece in the development of benchmarks and metrics, both for model training and quality assessment of production model endpoints. The current approaches to response classification relies on methods that are too expensive (i.e. LLM-as-a-Judge) or that are far from real-world conditions (string-matching, logprob). In this paper, a structure-free evaluation method is presented. The method makes use of semantic embedding distances to match target candidates with arbitrary LM-generated text, resulting in a robust classification of the response at a relatively low compute cost (embedding models of less than $10B$ parameters). The results show a regression score of ~0.97 and an accuracy of ~96% against human annotators, tested over 3 data sets and 3 different LM architectures.

The scarcity of large-scale classroom speech data has hindered the development of AI-driven speech models for education. Classroom datasets remain limited and not publicly available, and the absence of dedicated classroom noise or Room Impulse Response (RIR) corpora prevents the use of standard data augmentation techniques. In this paper, we introduce a scalable methodology for synthesizing classroom noise and RIRs using game engines, a versatile framework that can extend to other domains beyond the classroom. Building on this methodology, we present RealClass, a dataset that combines a synthesized classroom noise corpus with a classroom speech dataset compiled from publicly available corpora. The speech data pairs a children's speech corpus with instructional speech extracted from YouTube videos to approximate real classroom interactions in clean conditions. Experiments on clean and noisy speech show that RealClass closely approximates real classroom speech, making it a valuable asset in the absence of abundant real classroom speech.

The role that highly curated knowledge, provided by domain experts, could play in creating effective tutoring systems is often overlooked within the AI for education community. In this paper, we highlight this topic by discussing two ways such highly curated expert knowledge could help in creating novel educational systems. First, we will look at how one could use explainable AI (XAI) techniques to automatically create lessons. Most existing XAI methods are primarily aimed at debugging AI systems. However, we will discuss how one could use expert specified rules about solving specific problems along with novel XAI techniques to automatically generate lessons that could be provided to learners. Secondly, we will see how an expert specified curriculum for learning a target concept can help develop adaptive tutoring systems, that can not only provide a better learning experience, but could also allow us to use more efficient algorithms to create these systems. Finally, we will highlight the importance of such methods using a case study of creating a tutoring system for pollinator identification, where such knowledge could easily be elicited from experts.

In a multi-follower Bayesian Stackelberg game, a leader plays a mixed strategy over $L$ actions to which $n\ge 1$ followers, each having one of $K$ possible private types, best respond. The leader's optimal strategy depends on the distribution of the followers' private types. We study an online learning version of this problem: a leader interacts for $T$ rounds with $n$ followers with types sampled from an unknown distribution every round. The leader's goal is to minimize regret, defined as the difference between the cumulative utility of the optimal strategy and that of the actually chosen strategies. We design learning algorithms for the leader under different feedback settings. Under type feedback, where the leader observes the followers' types after each round, we design algorithms that achieve $\mathcal O\big(\sqrt{\min\{L\log(nKA T), nK \} \cdot T} \big)$ regret for independent type distributions and $\mathcal O\big(\sqrt{\min\{L\log(nKA T), K^n \} \cdot T} \big)$ regret for general type distributions. Interestingly, those bounds do not grow with $n$ at a polynomial rate. Under action feedback, where the leader only observes the followers' actions, we design algorithms with $\mathcal O( \min\{\sqrt{ n^L K^L A^{2L} L T \log T}, K^n\sqrt{ T } \log T \} )$ regret. We also provide a lower bound of $Ω(\sqrt{\min\{L, nK\}T})$, almost matching the type-feedback upper bounds.

Large language model (LLM) agents deployed for multi-step tasks frequently fail in predictable ways: attempting actions with unmet preconditions, issuing redundant commands, or mishandling environment constraints. While retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can improve performance by providing runtime guidance, it requires maintaining external knowledge databases and adds computational overhead at every deployment. We propose a simple pipeline that converts inference-time retrieval into learned competence through distillation. Our approach: (1) extracts compact, reusable hints from agent failures, (2) uses these hints to generate improved teacher trajectories via one-shot retrieval at episode start, and (3) trains student models on these trajectories with hint strings removed, forcing internalization rather than memorization. Across two interactive benchmarks, ALFWorld (household tasks) and WebShop (online shopping), distilled students consistently outperform baseline agents, achieving up to 91% success on ALFWorld (vs. The approach generalizes across model scales (7B/14B parameters) and agent architectures (ReAct/StateAct), demonstrating that retrieval benefits can be effectively internalized through targeted fine-tuning without permanent runtime dependencies. Large language models are increasingly deployed as agents that interact with environments to complete multi-step tasks. Success requires not just generating plausible text but maintaining goals across extended interactions, managing state and preconditions, and recovering from errors. Prior work has explored multiple approaches to improve agent performance. Structured prompting methods like ReAct (Y ao et al., 2023b) and StateAct (Rozanov & Rei, 2025) provide scaffolding for reasoning and state tracking. Self-reflection approaches such as Reflexion (Shinn et al., 2023) enable learning from mistakes across multiple attempts. Retrieval-augmented methods (Lewis et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2024; Fu et al., 2024) inject external knowledge to guide decisions.

Large language models are proliferating, and so are the benchmarks that serve as their common yardsticks. We ask how the agglomeration patterns of these two layers compare: do they evolve in tandem or diverge? Drawing on two curated proxies for the ecosystem, the Stanford Foundation-Model Ecosystem Graph and the Evidently AI benchmark registry, we find complementary but contrasting dynamics. Model creation has broadened across countries and organizations and diversified in modality, licensing, and access. Benchmark influence, by contrast, displays centralizing patterns: in the inferred benchmark-author-institution network, the top 15% of nodes account for over 80% of high-betweenness paths, three countries produce 83% of benchmark outputs, and the global Gini for inferred benchmark authority reaches 0.89. An agent-based simulation highlights three mechanisms: higher entry of new benchmarks reduces concentration; rapid inflows can temporarily complicate coordination in evaluation; and stronger penalties against over-fitting have limited effect. Taken together, these results suggest that concentrated benchmark influence functions as coordination infrastructure that supports standardization, comparability, and reproducibility amid rising heterogeneity in model production, while also introducing trade-offs such as path dependence, selective visibility, and diminishing discriminative power as leaderboards saturate.

Large language models' (LLMs') outputs are shaped by opaque and frequently-changing company content moderation policies and practices. LLM moderation often takes the form of refusal; models' refusal to produce text about certain topics both reflects company policy and subtly shapes public discourse. We introduce AI Watchman, a longitudinal auditing system to publicly measure and track LLM refusals over time, to provide transparency into an important and black-box aspect of LLMs. Using a dataset of over 400 social issues, we audit Open AI's moderation endpoint, GPT-4.1, and GPT-5, and DeepSeek (both in English and Chinese). We find evidence that changes in company policies, even those not publicly announced, can be detected by AI Watchman, and identify company- and model-specific differences in content moderation. We also qualitatively analyze and categorize different forms of refusal. This work contributes evidence for the value of longitudinal auditing of LLMs, and AI Watchman, one system for doing so.

Recent work in benchmarking bias and fairness in speech large language models (SpeechLLMs) has relied heavily on multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) formats. The model is tasked to choose between stereotypical, anti-stereotypical, or neutral/irrelevant answers given an input speech prompt and an optional text prompt. Such MCQA benchmarks implicitly assume that model performance is consistent across other MCQA tasks, voices, and other task formats such as more realistic, long-form evaluations. In this paper, we probe that assumption. We fine-tune three SpeechLLMs using LoRA adapters to induce specific MCQA behaviours: preference for stereotypical, anti-stereotypical, or neutral/uncertain answers. We then evaluate whether these behaviours generalise to another, distinct MCQA benchmark, and more critically to long-form, creative generation tasks. Our results show that performance on MCQA bias benchmarks fails to reliably predict performances across other MCQA benchmarks, and more importantly across long-form tasks. We conclude that current MCQA bias benchmarks show limited evidence of cross-task generalisation in the speech domain, and also propose an evaluation suite for measuring behaviour transferability in future models and benchmarks.