We propose AnveshanaAI, an application-based learning platform for artificial intelligence. With AnveshanaAI, learners are presented with a personalized dashboard featuring streaks, levels, badges, and structured navigation across domains such as data science, machine learning, deep learning, transformers, generative AI, large language models, and multimodal AI, with scope to include more in the future. The platform incorporates gamified tracking with points and achievements to enhance engagement and learning, while switching between Playground, Challenges, Simulator, Dashboard, and Community supports exploration and collaboration. Unlike static question repositories used in existing platforms, AnveshanaAI ensures balanced learning progression through a dataset grounded in Bloom's taxonomy, with semantic similarity checks and explainable AI techniques improving transparency and reliability. Adaptive, automated, and domain-aware assessment methods are also employed. Experiments demonstrate broad dataset coverage, stable fine-tuning with reduced perplexity, and measurable gains in learner engagement. Together, these features illustrate how AnveshanaAI integrates adaptivity, gamification, interactivity, and explainability to support next-generation AI education.

In-context learning (ICL) enables Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate predictions based on prompts without additional fine-tuning. While prompt engineering has been widely studied, the impact of role design within prompts remains underexplored. This study examines the influence of role configurations in zero-shot and few-shot learning scenarios using GPT-3.5 and GPT-4o from OpenAI and Llama2-7b and Llama2-13b from Meta. We evaluate the models' performance across datasets, focusing on tasks like sentiment analysis, text classification, question answering, and math reasoning. Our findings suggest the potential of role-based prompt structuring to enhance LLM performance.

Communication challenges between autistic and neurotypical individuals stem from a mutual lack of understanding of each other's distinct, and often contrasting, communication styles. Yet, autistic individuals are expected to adapt to neurotypical norms, making interactions inauthentic and mentally exhausting for them. To help redress this imbalance, we build NeuroBridge, an online platform that utilizes large language models (LLMs) to simulate: (a) an AI character that is direct and literal, a style common among many autistic individuals, and (b) four cross-neurotype communication scenarios in a feedback-driven conversation between this character and a neurotypical user. Through NeuroBridge, neurotypical individuals gain a firsthand look at autistic communication, and reflect on their role in shaping cross-neurotype interactions. In a user study with 12 neurotypical participants, we find that NeuroBridge improved their understanding of how autistic people may interpret language differently, with all describing autism as a social difference that "needs understanding by others" after completing the simulation. Participants valued its personalized, interactive format and described AI-generated feedback as "constructive", "logical" and "non-judgmental". Most perceived the portrayal of autism in the simulation as accurate, suggesting that users may readily accept AI-generated (mis)representations of disabilities. To conclude, we discuss design implications for disability representation in AI, the need for making NeuroBridge more personalized, and LLMs' limitations in modeling complex social scenarios.

Advances in automated scoring are closely aligned with advances in machine-learning and natural-language-processing techniques. With recent progress in large language models (LLMs), the use of ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and other generative-AI chatbots for automated scoring has been explored. Given their strong reasoning capabilities, LLMs can also produce rationales to support the scores they assign. Thus, evaluating the rationales provided by both human and LLM raters can help improve the understanding of the reasoning that each type of rater applies when assigning a score. This study investigates the rationales of human and LLM raters to identify potential causes of scoring inconsistency. Using essays from a large-scale test, the scoring accuracy of GPT-4o, Gemini, and other LLMs is examined based on quadratic weighted kappa and normalized mutual information. Cosine similarity is used to evaluate the similarity of the rationales provided. In addition, clustering patterns in rationales are explored using principal component analysis based on the embeddings of the rationales. The findings of this study provide insights into the accuracy and ``thinking'' of LLMs in automated scoring, helping to improve the understanding of the rationales behind both human scoring and LLM-based automated scoring.

As Generative AI (GenAI) systems see growing adoption, a key concern involves the external validity of evaluations, or the extent to which they generalize from lab-based to real-world deployment conditions. Threats to the external validity of GenAI evaluations arise when the source sample of human raters and system outputs used to obtain a system quality estimate differs from the target distribution at deployment time. In this work, we propose a doubly-robust estimation framework designed to address this evaluation sampling bias. Key to our approach is the use of "persona" ratings produced by prompting an LLM evaluator (i.e., an LLM-as-a-judge) to behave as a human rater with specific sociodemographic characteristics. Our doubly-robust framework combines these informative yet imperfect persona ratings with human ratings obtained under evaluation sampling bias to produce statistically valid system quality estimates. In particular, we show that our approach yields valid system quality estimates when either (i) a model trained to predict human ratings using persona ratings and source data observed under sampling bias, or (ii) a reweighting model that corrects for sampling bias is of sufficient quality. We validate our framework theoretically and via a novel Persona Simulation Framework (PSF) designed to systematically manipulate persona quality and the degree of evaluation sampling bias present in source data. Our work provides a principled foundation for combining imperfect persona ratings with human ratings observed under sampling bias to obtain valid system quality estimates.

Generative AI has established the opportunity to readily transform content from one medium to another. This capability is especially powerful for storytelling, where visual illustrations can illuminate a story originally expressed in text. In this paper, we focus on the task of narrative scene illustration, which involves automatically generating an image depicting a scene in a story. Motivated by recent progress on text-to-image models, we consider a pipeline that uses LLMs as an interface for prompting text-to-image models to generate scene illustrations given raw story text. We apply variations of this pipeline to a prominent story corpus in order to synthesize illustrations for scenes in these stories. We conduct a human annotation task to obtain pairwise quality judgments for these illustrations. The outcome of this process is the SceneIllustrations dataset, which we release as a new resource for future work on cross-modal narrative transformation. Through our analysis of this dataset and experiments modeling illustration quality, we demonstrate that LLMs can effectively verbalize scene knowledge implicitly evoked by story text. Moreover, this capability is impactful for generating and evaluating illustrations.

With the rapid advancement of image generation techniques, robust forgery detection has become increasingly imperative to ensure the trustworthiness of digital media. Recent research indicates that the learned semantic concepts of pre-trained models are critical for identifying fake images. However, the misalignment between the forgery and semantic concept spaces hinders the model's forgery detection performance. To address this problem, we propose a novel Semantic Discrepancy-aware Detector (SDD) that leverages reconstruction learning to align the two spaces at a fine-grained visual level. By exploiting the conceptual knowledge embedded in the pre-trained vision language model, we specifically design a semantic token sampling module to mitigate the space shifts caused by features irrelevant to both forgery traces and semantic concepts. A concept-level forgery discrepancy learning module, built upon a visual reconstruction paradigm, is proposed to strengthen the interaction between visual semantic concepts and forgery traces, effectively capturing discrepancies under the concepts' guidance. Finally, the low-level forgery feature enhancemer integrates the learned concept level forgery discrepancies to minimize redundant forgery information. Experiments conducted on two standard image forgery datasets demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed SDD, which achieves superior results compared to existing methods. The code is available at https://github.com/wzy1111111/SSD.

Modern moderation systems increasingly support multiple languages, but often fail to address localisation and low-resource variants - creating safety gaps in real-world deployments. Small models offer a potential alternative to large LLMs, yet still demand considerable data and compute. We present LionGuard 2, a lightweight, multilingual moderation classifier tailored to the Singapore context, supporting English, Chinese, Malay, and partial Tamil. Built on pre-trained OpenAI embeddings and a multi-head ordinal classifier, LionGuard 2 outperforms several commercial and open-source systems across 17 benchmarks, including both Singapore-specific and public English datasets. The system is actively deployed within the Singapore Government, demonstrating practical efficacy at scale. Our findings show that high-quality local data and robust multilingual embeddings can achieve strong moderation performance, without fine-tuning large models. We release our model weights and part of our training data to support future work on LLM safety.

Despite their widespread use in fact-checking, moderation, and high-stakes decision-making, large language models (LLMs) remain poorly understood as judges of truth. This study presents the largest evaluation to date of LLMs' veracity detection capabilities and the first analysis of these capabilities in reasoning models. We had eight LLMs make 4,800 veracity judgments across several prompts, comparing reasoning and non-reasoning models. We find that rates of truth-bias, or the likelihood to believe a statement is true, regardless of whether it is actually true, are lower in reasoning models than in non-reasoning models, but still higher than human benchmarks. Most concerning, we identify sycophantic tendencies in several advanced models (o4-mini and GPT-4.1 from OpenAI, R1 from DeepSeek), which displayed an asymmetry in detection accuracy, performing well in truth accuracy but poorly in deception accuracy. This suggests that capability advances alone do not resolve fundamental veracity detection challenges in LLMs.

Competitive programming contests play a crucial role in cultivating computational thinking and algorithmic skills among learners. However, generating comprehensive test cases to effectively assess programming solutions remains resource-intensive and challenging for educators. This paper introduces an innovative NLP-driven method leveraging generative AI (large language models) to automate the creation of high-quality test cases for competitive programming assessments. We extensively evaluated our approach on diverse datasets, including 25 years of Romanian Informatics Olympiad (OJI) data for 5th graders, recent competitions hosted on the Kilonova.ro platform, and the International Informatics Olympiad in Teams (IIOT). Our results demonstrate that AI-generated test cases substantially enhanced assessments, notably identifying previously undetected errors in 67% of the OJI 5th grade programming problems. These improvements underscore the complementary educational value of our technique in formative assessment contexts. By openly sharing our prompts, translated datasets, and methodologies, we offer practical NLP-based tools that educators and contest organizers can readily integrate to enhance assessment quality, reduce workload, and deepen insights into learner performance.