Personalizing digital applications for health behavior change is a promising route to making them more engaging and effective. This especially holds for approaches that adapt to users and their specific states (e.g., motivation, knowledge, wants) over time. However, developing such approaches requires making many design choices, whose effectiveness is difficult to predict from literature and costly to evaluate in practice. In this work, we explore whether large language models (LLMs) can be used out-of-the-box to generate samples of user interactions that provide useful information for training reinforcement learning models for digital behavior change settings. Using real user data from four large behavior change studies as comparison, we show that LLM-generated samples can be useful in the absence of real data. Comparisons to the samples provided by human raters further show that LLM-generated samples reach the performance of human raters. Additional analyses of different prompting strategies including shorter and longer prompt variants, chain-of-thought prompting, and few-shot prompting show that the relative effectiveness of different strategies depends on both the study and the LLM with also relatively large differences between prompt paraphrases alone. We provide recommendations for how LLM-generated samples can be useful in practice.

While recent research suggests Large Language Models match human creative performance in divergent thinking tasks, visual creativity remains underexplored. This study compared image generation in human participants (Visual Artists and Non Artists) and using an image generation AI model (two prompting conditions with varying human input: high for Human Inspired, low for Self Guided). Human raters (N=255) and GPT4o evaluated the creativity of the resulting images. We found a clear creativity gradient, with Visual Artists being the most creative, followed by Non Artists, then Human Inspired generative AI, and finally Self Guided generative AI. Increased human guidance strongly improved GenAI's creative output, bringing its productions close to those of Non Artists. Notably, human and AI raters also showed vastly different creativity judgment patterns. These results suggest that, in contrast to language centered tasks, GenAI models may face unique challenges in visual domains, where creativity depends on perceptual nuance and contextual sensitivity, distinctly human capacities that may not be readily transferable from language models.

Objective and scalable measurement of teaching quality is a persistent challenge in education. While Large Language Models (LLMs) offer potential, general-purpose models have struggled to reliably apply complex, authentic classroom observation instruments. This paper uses custom LLMs built on sentence-level embeddings, an architecture better suited for the long-form, interpretive nature of classroom transcripts than conventional subword tokenization. We systematically evaluate five different sentence embeddings under a data-efficient training regime designed to prevent overfitting. Our results demonstrate that these specialized models can achieve human-level and even super-human performance with expert human ratings above 0.65 and surpassing the average human-human rater correlation. Further, through analysis of annotation context windows, we find that more advanced models-those better aligned with human judgments-attribute a larger share of score variation to lesson-level features rather than isolated utterances, challenging the sufficiency of single-turn annotation paradigms. Finally, to assess external validity, we find that aggregate model scores align with teacher value-added measures, indicating they are capturing features relevant to student learning. However, this trend does not hold at the individual item level, suggesting that while the models learn useful signals, they have not yet achieved full generalization. This work establishes a viable and powerful new methodology for AI-driven instructional measurement, offering a path toward providing scalable, reliable, and valid feedback for educator development.

Human feedback is critical for aligning AI systems to human values. As AI capabilities improve and AI is used to tackle more challenging tasks, verifying quality and safety becomes increasingly challenging. This paper explores how we can leverage AI to improve the quality of human oversight. We focus on an important safety problem that is already challenging for humans: fact-verification of AI outputs. We find that combining AI ratings and human ratings based on AI rater confidence is better than relying on either alone. Giving humans an AI fact-verification assistant further improves their accuracy, but the type of assistance matters. Displaying AI explanation, confidence, and labels leads to over-reliance, but just showing search results and evidence fosters more appropriate trust. These results have implications for Amplified Oversight -- the challenge of combining humans and AI to supervise AI systems even as they surpass human expert performance.

Human evaluation of machine translation is in an arms race with translation model quality: as our models get better, our evaluation methods need to be improved to ensure that quality gains are not lost in evaluation noise. To this end, we experiment with a two-stage version of the current state-of-the-art translation evaluation paradigm (MQM), which we call MQM re-annotation. In this setup, an MQM annotator reviews and edits a set of pre-existing MQM annotations, that may have come from themselves, another human annotator, or an automatic MQM annotation system. We demonstrate that rater behavior in re-annotation aligns with our goals, and that re-annotation results in higher-quality annotations, mostly due to finding errors that were missed during the first pass.

Assessing communication and collaboration at scale depends on a labor intensive task of coding communication data into categories according to different frameworks. Prior research has established that ChatGPT can be directly instructed with coding rubrics to code the communication data and achieves accuracy comparable to human raters. However, whether the coding from ChatGPT or similar AI technology exhibits bias against different demographic groups, such as gender and race, remains unclear. To fill this gap, this paper investigates ChatGPT-based automated coding of communication data using a typical coding framework for collaborative problem solving, examining differences across gender and racial groups. The analysis draws on data from three types of collaborative tasks: negotiation, problem solving, and decision making. Our results show that ChatGPT-based coding exhibits no significant bias across gender and racial groups, paving the road for its adoption in large-scale assessment of collaboration and communication.

The developments in Generative AI technologies have paved the way for numerous innovations in different fields. Recently, Generative AI has been proposed as a competitor to AES systems in evaluating student essays automatically. Considering the potential limitations of AI in processing idioms, this study assessed the scoring performances of Generative AI models for essays with and without idioms by incorporating insights from Corpus Linguistics and Computational Linguistics. Two equal essay lists were created from 348 student essays taken from a corpus: one with multiple idioms present in each essay and another with no idioms in essays. Three Generative AI models (ChatGPT, Gemini, and Deepseek) were asked to score all essays in both lists three times, using the same rubric used by human raters in assigning essay scores. The results revealed excellent consistency for all models, but Gemini outperformed its competitors in interrater reliability with human raters. There was also no detectable bias for any demographic group in AI assessment. For essays with multiple idioms, Gemini followed a the most similar pattern to human raters. While the models in the study demonstrated potential for a hybrid approach, Gemini was the best candidate for the task due to its ability to handle figurative language and showed promise for handling essay-scoring tasks alone in the future.

The absence of explicit communication channels between automated vehicles (AVs) and other road users requires the use of external Human-Machine Interfaces (eHMIs) to convey messages effectively in uncertain scenarios. Currently, most eHMI studies employ predefined text messages and manually designed actions to perform these messages, which limits the real-world deployment of eHMIs, where adaptability in dynamic scenarios is essential. Given the generalizability and versatility of large language models (LLMs), they could potentially serve as automated action designers for the message-action design task. To validate this idea, we make three contributions: (1) We propose a pipeline that integrates LLMs and 3D renderers, using LLMs as action designers to generate executable actions for controlling eHMIs and rendering action clips. (2) We collect a user-rated Action-Design Scoring dataset comprising a total of 320 action sequences for eight intended messages and four representative eHMI modalities. The dataset validates that LLMs can translate intended messages into actions close to a human level, particularly for reasoning-enabled LLMs. (3) We introduce two automated raters, Action Reference Score (ARS) and Vision-Language Models (VLMs), to benchmark 18 LLMs, finding that the VLM aligns with human preferences yet varies across eHMI modalities.

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.

We examined how model size, temperature, and prompt style affect Large Language Models' (LLMs) alignment within itself, between models, and with human in assessing clinical reasoning skills. Model size emerged as a key factor in LLM-human score alignment. Study highlights the importance of checking alignments across multiple levels.