As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly integrated into education, understanding how students perceive its risks is essential for supporting responsible and effective adoption. This research aimed to examine the relationships between perceived AI competence and risks among Finnish K-12 upper secondary students (n = 163) by utilizing a co-occurrence analysis. Students reported their self-perceived AI competence and concerns related to AI across systemic, institutional, and personal domains. The findings showed that students with lower competence emphasized personal and learning-related risks, such as reduced creativity, lack of critical thinking, and misuse, whereas higher-competence students focused more on systemic and institutional risks, including bias, inaccuracy, and cheating. These differences suggest that students' self-reported AI competence is related to how they evaluate both the risks and opportunities associated with artificial intelligence in education (AIED). The results of this study highlight the need for educational institutions to incorporate AI literacy into their curricula, provide teacher guidance, and inform policy development to ensure personalized opportunities for utilization and equitable integration of AI into K-12 education.

Detecting political bias in news media is a complex task that requires interpreting subtle linguistic and contextual cues. Although recent advances in Natural Language Processing (NLP) have enabled automatic bias classification, the extent to which large language models (LLMs) align with human judgment still remains relatively underexplored and not yet well understood. This study aims to present a comparative framework for evaluating the detection of political bias across human annotations and multiple LLMs, including GPT, BERT, RoBERTa, and FLAN. We construct a manually annotated dataset of news articles and assess annotation consistency, bias polarity, and inter-model agreement to quantify divergence between human and model perceptions of bias. Experimental results show that among traditional transformer-based models, RoBERTa achieves the highest alignment with human labels, whereas generative models such as GPT demonstrate the strongest overall agreement with human annotations in a zero-shot setting. Among all transformer-based baselines, our fine-tuned RoBERTa model acquired the highest accuracy and the strongest alignment with human-annotated labels. Our findings highlight systematic differences in how humans and LLMs perceive political slant, underscoring the need for hybrid evaluation frameworks that combine human interpretability with model scalability in automated media bias detection.

We argue that this discrepancy primarily arises due to existing evaluation that only measures LLMs'

Regularized system identification has become a significant complement to more classical system identification. It has been numerically shown that kernel-based regularized estimators often perform better than the maximum likelihood estimator in terms of minimizing mean squared error (MSE). However, regularized estimators often require hyper-parameter estimation. This paper focuses on ridge regression and the regularized estimator by employing the empirical Bayes hyper-parameter estimator. We utilize the excess MSE to quantify the MSE difference between the empirical-Bayes-based regularized estimator and the maximum likelihood estimator for large sample sizes. We then exploit the excess MSE expressions to develop both a family of generalized Bayes estimators and a family of closed-form biased estimators. They have the same excess MSE as the empirical-Bayes-based regularized estimator but eliminate the need for hyper-parameter estimation. Moreover, we conduct numerical simulations to show that the performance of these new estimators is comparable to the empirical-Bayes-based regularized estimator, while computationally, they are more efficient.

Evaluating new techniques on realistic datasets plays a crucial role in the development of ML research and its broader adoption by practitioners. In recent years, there has been a significant increase of publicly available unstructured data resources for computer vision and NLP tasks. However, tabular data -- which is prevalent in many high-stakes domains -- has been lagging behind. To bridge this gap, we present Bank Account Fraud (BAF), the first publicly available 1 privacy-preserving, large-scale, realistic suite of tabular datasets. The suite was generated by applying state-of-the-art tabular data generation techniques on an anonymized,real-world bank account opening fraud detection dataset.

Geographical, gender and stereotypical biases in computer vision models pose significant challenges to their performance and fairness. {In this study, we present an approach named FaceSaliencyAug aimed at addressing the gender bias in} {Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) and Vision Transformers (ViTs). Leveraging the salient regions} { of faces detected by saliency, the propose approach mitigates geographical and stereotypical biases } {in the datasets. FaceSaliencyAug} randomly selects masks from a predefined search space and applies them to the salient region of face images, subsequently restoring the original image with masked salient region. {The proposed} augmentation strategy enhances data diversity, thereby improving model performance and debiasing effects. We quantify dataset diversity using Image Similarity Score (ISS) across five datasets, including Flickr Faces HQ (FFHQ), WIKI, IMDB, Labelled Faces in the Wild (LFW), UTK Faces, and Diverse Dataset. The proposed approach demonstrates superior diversity metrics, as evaluated by ISS-intra and ISS-inter algorithms. Furthermore, we evaluate the effectiveness of our approach in mitigating gender bias on CEO, Engineer, Nurse, and School Teacher datasets. We use the Image-Image Association Score (IIAS) to measure gender bias in these occupations. Our experiments reveal a reduction in gender bias for both CNNs and ViTs, indicating the efficacy of our method in promoting fairness and inclusivity in computer vision models.

This paper presents research on enhancements to Large Language Models (LLMs) through the addition of diversity in its generated outputs. Our study introduces a configuration of multiple LLMs which demonstrates the diversities capable with a single LLM. By developing multiple customised instances of a GPT model, each reflecting biases in specific demographic characteristics including gender, age, and race, we propose, develop and evaluate a framework for a more nuanced and representative AI dialogue which we call BiasGPT. The customised GPT models will ultimately collaborate, merging their diverse perspectives on a topic into an integrated response that captures a broad spectrum of human experiences and viewpoints. In this paper, through experiments, we demonstrate the capabilities of a GPT model to embed different biases which, when combined, can open the possibilities of more inclusive AI technologies.

We present an overview of the FIGNEWS shared task, organized as part of the ArabicNLP 2024 conference co-located with ACL 2024. The shared task addresses bias and propaganda annotation in multilingual news posts. We focus on the early days of the Israel War on Gaza as a case study. The task aims to foster collaboration in developing annotation guidelines for subjective tasks by creating frameworks for analyzing diverse narratives highlighting potential bias and propaganda. In a spirit of fostering and encouraging diversity, we address the problem from a multilingual perspective, namely within five languages: English, French, Arabic, Hebrew, and Hindi. A total of 17 teams participated in two annotation subtasks: bias (16 teams) and propaganda (6 teams). The teams competed in four evaluation tracks: guidelines development, annotation quality, annotation quantity, and consistency. Collectively, the teams produced 129,800 data points. Key findings and implications for the field are discussed.

To improve the reasoning and question-answering capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), several multi-agent approaches have been introduced. While these methods enhance performance, the application of collective intelligence-based approaches to complex network structures and the dynamics of agent interactions remain underexplored. This work extends the concept of multi-agent debate to more general network topologies, measuring the question-answering accuracy, influence, consensus, and the effects of bias on the collective. The results show that random networks perform similarly to fully connected networks despite using significantly fewer tokens. Furthermore, a strong consensus among agents correlates with correct answers, whereas divided responses typically indicate incorrect answers. Analysing the influence of the agents reveals a balance between self-reflection and interconnectedness; self-reflection aids when local interactions are incorrect, and local interactions aid when the agent itself is incorrect. Additionally, bias plays a strong role in system performance with correctly biased hub nodes boosting performance. These insights suggest that using random networks or scale-free networks with knowledgeable agents placed in central positions can enhance the overall question-answering performance of multi-agent systems.