Yuxiang Guan

Ruben Weijers, Denton Wu, Hannah Betts et al.

Generative AI has the potential to transform personalization and accessibility of education. However, it raises serious concerns about accuracy and helping students become independent critical thinkers. In this study, we designed a helpful AI "Peer" to help students correct fundamental physics misconceptions related to Newtonian mechanic concepts. In contrast to approaches that seek near-perfect accuracy to create an authoritative AI tutor or teacher, we directly inform students that this AI can answer up to 40% of questions incorrectly. In a randomized controlled trial with 165 students, those who engaged in targeted dialogue with the AI Peer achieved post-test scores that were, on average, 10.5 percentage points higher - with over 20 percentage points higher normalized gain - than a control group that discussed physics history. Qualitative feedback indicated that 91% of the treatment group's AI interactions were rated as helpful. Furthermore, by comparing student performance on pre- and post-test questions about the same concept, along with experts' annotations of the AI interactions, we find initial evidence suggesting the improvement in performance does not depend on the correctness of the AI. With further research, the AI Peer paradigm described here could open new possibilities for how we learn, adapt to, and grow with AI.

Camille Thibault, Jacob-Junqi Tian, Gabrielle Peloquin-Skulski et al.

Misinformation is a complex societal issue, and mitigating solutions are difficult to create due to data deficiencies. To address this, we have curated the largest collection of (mis)information datasets in the literature, totaling 75. From these, we evaluated the quality of 36 datasets that consist of statements or claims, as well as the 9 datasets that consist of data in purely paragraph form. We assess these datasets to identify those with solid foundations for empirical work and those with flaws that could result in misleading and non-generalizable results, such as spurious correlations, or examples that are ambiguous or otherwise impossible to assess for veracity. We find the latter issue is particularly severe and affects most datasets in the literature. We further provide state-of-the-art baselines on all these datasets, but show that regardless of label quality, categorical labels may no longer give an accurate evaluation of detection model performance. Finally, we propose and highlight Evaluation Quality Assurance (EQA) as a tool to guide the field toward systemic solutions rather than inadvertently propagating issues in evaluation. Overall, this guide aims to provide a roadmap for higher quality data and better grounded evaluations, ultimately improving research in misinformation detection. All datasets and other artifacts are available at https://misinfo-datasets.complexdatalab.com/.