Item Discrimination (ID) theory, which is widely used in educational assessment, measures the ability of individual test items to differentiate between high and low performers. Inspired by this theory, wepropose anID-induced prompt synthesis frameworkforevaluating LLMs to ensure the evaluation set can continually update and refine according to model abilities.

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly integrated into daily life, there is a growing need to equip the next generation with the ability to apply, interact with, evaluate, and collaborate with AI systems responsibly. Prior research highlights the urgent demand from K-12 educators to teach students the ethical and effective use of AI for learning. To address this need, we designed an Large-Language Model (LLM)-based module to teach prompting literacy. This includes scenario-based deliberate practice activities with direct interaction with intelligent LLM agents, aiming to foster secondary school students' responsible engagement with AI chatbots. We conducted two iterations of classroom deployment in 11 authentic secondary education classrooms, and evaluated 1) AI-based auto-grader's capability; 2) students' prompting performance and confidence changes towards using AI for learning; and 3) the quality of learning and assessment materials. Results indicated that the AI-based auto-grader could grade student-written prompts with satisfactory quality. In addition, the instructional materials supported students in improving their prompting skills through practice and led to positive shifts in their perceptions of using AI for learning. Furthermore, data from Study 1 informed assessment revisions in Study 2. Analyses of item difficulty and discrimination in Study 2 showed that True/False and open-ended questions could measure prompting literacy more effectively than multiple-choice questions for our target learners. These promising outcomes highlight the potential for broader deployment and highlight the need for broader studies to assess learning effectiveness and assessment design.

Item Discrimination (ID) theory, which is widely used in educational assessment, measures the ability of individual test items to differentiate between high and low performers. Inspired by this theory, we propose an ID-induced prompt synthesis framework for evaluating LLMs to ensure the evaluation set can continually update and refine according to model abilities.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) grow increasingly adept at managing complex tasks, the evaluation set must keep pace with these advancements to ensure it remains sufficiently discriminative. Item Discrimination (ID) theory, which is widely used in educational assessment, measures the ability of individual test items to differentiate between high and low performers. Inspired by this theory, we propose an ID-induced prompt synthesis framework for evaluating LLMs to ensure the evaluation set can continually update and refine according to model abilities. Our data synthesis framework prioritizes both breadth and specificity. It can generate prompts that comprehensively evaluate the capabilities of LLMs while revealing meaningful performance differences between models, allowing for effective discrimination of their relative strengths and weaknesses across various tasks and domains. To produce high-quality data, we incorporate a self-correct mechanism into our generalization framework, and develop two models to predict prompt discrimination and difficulty score to facilitate our data synthesis framework, contributing valuable tools to evaluation data synthesis research. We apply our generated data to evaluate five SOTA models. Our data achieves an average score of 51.92, accompanied by a variance of 10.06. By contrast, previous works (i.e., SELF-INSTRUCT and WizardLM) obtain an average score exceeding 67, with a variance below 3.2. The results demonstrate that the data generated by our framework is more challenging and discriminative compared to previous works. We will release a dataset of over 3,000 carefully crafted prompts to facilitate evaluation research of LLMs.

Undesired bias afflicts both human and algorithmic decision making, and may be especially prevalent when information processing trade-offs incentivize the use of heuristics. One primary example is \textit{statistical discrimination} -- selecting social partners based not on their underlying attributes, but on readily perceptible characteristics that covary with their suitability for the task at hand. We present a theoretical model to examine how information processing influences statistical discrimination and test its predictions using multi-agent reinforcement learning with various agent architectures in a partner choice-based social dilemma. As predicted, statistical discrimination emerges in agent policies as a function of both the bias in the training population and of agent architecture. All agents showed substantial statistical discrimination, defaulting to using the readily available correlates instead of the outcome relevant features. We show that less discrimination emerges with agents that use recurrent neural networks, and when their training environment has less bias. However, all agent algorithms we tried still exhibited substantial bias after learning in biased training populations.

Survival analysis in the presence of multiple possible adverse events, i.e., competing risks, is a pervasive problem in many industries (healthcare, finance, etc.). Since only one event is typically observed, the incidence of an event of interest is often obscured by other related competing events. This nonidentifiability, or inability to estimate true cause-specific survival curves from empirical data, further complicates competing risk survival analysis. We introduce Siamese Survival Prognosis Network (SSPN), a novel deep learning architecture for estimating personalized risk scores in the presence of competing risks. SSPN circumvents the nonidentifiability problem by avoiding the estimation of cause-specific survival curves and instead determines pairwise concordant time-dependent risks, where longer event times are assigned lower risks. Furthermore, SSPN is able to directly optimize an approximation to the C-discrimination index, rather than relying on well-known metrics which are unable to capture the unique requirements of survival analysis with competing risks.

Measurement professionals cannot come to an agreement on the definition of the term 'item fairness'. In this paper a continuous measure of item unfairness is proposed. The more the unfairness measure deviates from zero, the less fair the item is. If the measure exceeds the cutoff value, the item is identified as definitely unfair. The new approach can identify unfair items that would not be identified with conventional procedures. The results are in accord with experts' judgments on the item qualities. Since no assumptions about scores distributions and/or correlations are assumed, the method is applicable to any educational test. Its performance is illustrated through application to scores of a real test.