Hostile attribution bias is the tendency to interpret social interactions as intentionally hostile. The Ambiguous Intentions Hostility Questionnaire (AIHQ) is commonly used to measure hostile attribution bias, and includes open-ended questions where participants describe the perceived intentions behind a negative social situation and how they would respond. While these questions provide insights into the contents of hostile attributions, they require time-intensive scoring by human raters. In this study, we assessed whether large language models can automate the scoring of AIHQ open-ended responses. We used a previously collected dataset in which individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and healthy controls (HC) completed the AIHQ and had their open-ended responses rated by trained human raters. We used half of these responses to fine-tune the two models on human-generated ratings, and tested the fine-tuned models on the remaining half of AIHQ responses. Results showed that model-generated ratings aligned with human ratings for both attributions of hostility and aggression responses, with fine-tuned models showing higher alignment. This alignment was consistent across ambiguous, intentional, and accidental scenario types, and replicated previous findings on group differences in attributions of hostility and aggression responses between TBI and HC groups. The fine-tuned models also generalized well to an independent nonclinical dataset. To support broader adoption, we provide an accessible scoring interface that includes both local and cloud-based options. Together, our findings suggest that large language models can streamline AIHQ scoring in both research and clinical contexts, revealing their potential to facilitate psychological assessments across different populations.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in mathematical problem-solving. However, the transition from providing answers to generating high-quality educational questions presents significant challenges that remain underexplored. To advance Educational Question Generation (EQG) and facilitate LLMs in generating pedagogically valuable and educationally effective questions, we introduce EQGBench, a comprehensive benchmark specifically designed for evaluating LLMs' performance in Chinese EQG. EQGBench establishes a five-dimensional evaluation framework supported by a dataset of 900 evaluation samples spanning three fundamental middle school disciplines: mathematics, physics, and chemistry. The dataset incorporates user queries with varying knowledge points, difficulty gradients, and question type specifications to simulate realistic educational scenarios. Through systematic evaluation of 46 mainstream large models, we reveal significant room for development in generating questions that reflect educational value and foster students' comprehensive abilities.

We analyze anonymous interaction data of minors in class-rooms spanning several months, schools, and subjects employing a novel, simple topic modeling approach. Specifically, we categorize more than 17,000 messages generated by students, teachers, and ChatGPT in two dimensions: content (such as nature and people) and tasks (such as writing and explaining). Our hierarchical categorization done separately for each dimension includes exemplary prompts, and provides both a high-level overview as well as tangible insights. Prior works mostly lack a content or thematic categorization. While task categorizations are more prevalent in education, most have not been supported by real-world data for K-12. In turn, it is not surprising that our analysis yielded a number of novel applications. In deriving these insights, we found that many of the well-established classical and emerging computational methods, i.e., topic modeling, for analysis of large amounts of texts underperform, leading us to directly apply state-of-the-art LLMs with adequate pre-processing to achieve hierarchical topic structures with better human alignment through explicit instructions than prior approaches. Our findings support fellow researchers, teachers and students in enriching the usage of GenAI, while our discussion also highlights a number of concerns and open questions for future research.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in realworld applications, yet concerns about their fairness persist especially in highstakes domains like criminal justice, education, healthcare, and finance. This paper introduces transparent evaluation protocol for benchmarking the fairness of opensource LLMs using smart contracts on the Internet Computer Protocol (ICP) blockchain (Foundation, 2023). Our method ensures verifiable, immutable, and reproducible evaluations by executing onchain HTTP requests to hosted Hugging Face endpoints and storing datasets, prompts, and metrics directly onchain. We benchmark the Llama, DeepSeek, and Mistral models on the PISA dataset for academic performance prediction (OECD, 2018), a dataset suitable for fairness evaluation using statistical parity and equal opportunity metrics (Hardt et al., 2016). We also evaluate structured Context Association Metrics derived from the StereoSet dataset (Nadeem et al., 2020) to measure social bias in contextual associations. We further extend our analysis with a multilingual evaluation across English, Spanish, and Portuguese using the Kaleidoscope benchmark (Salazar et al., 2025), revealing cross-linguistic disparities. All code and results are open source, enabling community audits and longitudinal fairness tracking across model versions.

We introduce PRELUDE, a benchmark for evaluating long-context understanding through the task of determining whether a character's prequel story is consistent with the canonical narrative of the original book. Our task poses a stronger demand for global comprehension and deep reasoning than existing benchmarks -- as the prequels are not part of the original story, assessing their plausibility typically requires searching and integrating information that is only indirectly related. Empirically, 88% of instances require evidence from multiple parts of the narrative. Experimental results highlight the challenge of our task: in-context learning, RAG and in-domain training with state-of-the-art LLMs, and commercial DeepResearch services, lag behind humans by >15%. A further human study reveals that models often produce correct answers with flawed reasoning, leading to an over 30% gap in reasoning accuracy compared to humans. These findings underscore the substantial room for improvement in long-context understanding and reasoning.

Knowledge syntheses (literature reviews) are essential to health professions education (HPE), consolidating findings to advance theory and practice. However, they are labor-intensive, especially during data extraction. Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted extraction promises efficiency but raises concerns about accuracy, making it critical to distinguish AI 'hallucinations' (fabricated content) from legitimate interpretive differences. We developed an extraction platform using large language models (LLMs) to automate data extraction and compared AI to human responses across 187 publications and 17 extraction questions from a published scoping review. AI-human, human-human, and AI-AI consistencies were measured using interrater reliability (categorical) and thematic similarity ratings (open-ended). Errors were identified by comparing extracted responses to source publications. AI was highly consistent with humans for concrete, explicitly stated questions (e.g., title, aims) and lower for questions requiring subjective interpretation or absent in text (e.g., Kirkpatrick's outcomes, study rationale). Human-human consistency was not higher than AI-human and showed the same question-dependent variability. Discordant AI-human responses (769/3179 = 24.2%) were mostly due to interpretive differences (18.3%); AI inaccuracies were rare (1.51%), while humans were nearly three times more likely to state inaccuracies (4.37%). Findings suggest AI variability depends more on interpretability than hallucination. Repeating AI extraction can identify interpretive complexity or ambiguity, refining processes before human review. AI can be a transparent, trustworthy partner in knowledge synthesis, though caution is needed to preserve critical human insights.

Recent R1-Zero-like research further demonstrates that reasoning extension has given large language models (LLMs) unprecedented reasoning capabilities, and Reinforcement Learning is the core technology to elicit its complex reasoning. However, conducting RL experiments directly on hyperscale models involves high computational costs and resource demands, posing significant risks. We propose the Compass-Thinker-7B model, which aims to explore the potential of Reinforcement Learning with less computational resources and costs, and provides insights for further research into RL recipes for larger models. Compass-Thinker-7B is trained from an open source model through a specially designed Reinforcement Learning Pipeline. We curate a dataset of 30k verifiable mathematics problems for the Reinforcement Learning Pipeline. By configuring data and training settings with different difficulty distributions for different stages, the potential of the model is gradually released and the training efficiency is improved. Extensive evaluations show that Compass-Thinker-7B possesses exceptional reasoning potential, and achieves superior performance on mathematics compared to the same-sized RL model. Especially in the challenging AIME2024 evaluation, Compass-Thinker-7B achieves 40% accuracy.

In English education tutoring, teacher feedback is essential for guiding students. Recently, AI-based tutoring systems have emerged to assist teachers; however, these systems require high-quality and large-scale teacher feedback data, which is both time-consuming and costly to generate manually. In this study, we propose FEAT, a cost-effective framework for generating teacher feedback, and have constructed three complementary datasets: (1) DIRECT-Manual (DM), where both humans and large language models (LLMs) collaboratively generate high-quality teacher feedback, albeit at a higher cost; (2) DIRECT-Generated (DG), an LLM-only generated, cost-effective dataset with lower quality;, and (3) DIRECT-Augmented (DA), primarily based on DG with a small portion of DM added to enhance quality while maintaining cost-efficiency. Experimental results showed that incorporating a small portion of DM (5-10%) into DG leads to superior performance compared to using 100% DM alone.

Large language models (LLMs) have created new opportunities to assist teachers and support student learning. While researchers have explored various prompt engineering approaches in educational contexts, the degree to which these approaches generalize across domains--such as science, computing, and engineering--remains underexplored. In this paper, we introduce Chain-of-Thought Prompting + Active Learning (CoTAL), an LLM-based approach to formative assessment scoring that (1) leverages Evidence-Centered Design (ECD) to align assessments and rubrics with curriculum goals, (2) applies human-in-the-loop prompt engineering to automate response scoring, and (3) incorporates chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting and teacher and student feedback to iteratively refine questions, rubrics, and LLM prompts. Our findings demonstrate that CoTAL improves GPT-4's scoring performance across domains, achieving gains of up to 38.9% over a non-prompt-engineered baseline (i.e., without labeled examples, chain-of-thought prompting, or iterative refinement). Teachers and students judge CoTAL to be effective at scoring and explaining responses, and their feedback produces valuable insights that enhance grading accuracy and explanation quality.

Matching markets are often organized in a multi-stage and decentralized manner. Moreover, participants in real-world matching markets often have uncertain preferences.