Kaixun Yang's scientific contributions

What is this page?


This page lists the scientific contributions of an author, who either does not have a ResearchGate profile, or has not yet added these contributions to their profile.

It was automatically created by ResearchGate to create a record of this author's body of work. We create such pages to advance our goal of creating and maintaining the most comprehensive scientific repository possible. In doing so, we process publicly available (personal) data relating to the author as a member of the scientific community.

If you're a ResearchGate member, you can follow this page to keep up with this author's work.

If you are this author, and you don't want us to display this page anymore, please let us know.

Publications (4)


Ink and Algorithm: Exploring Temporal Dynamics in Human-AI Collaborative Writing
  • Preprint

June 2024

·

18 Reads

Kaixun Yang

·

Yixin Cheng

·

·

[...]

·

Guanliang Chen

The advent of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) has revolutionized the field of writing, marking a shift towards human-AI collaborative writing in education. However, the dynamics of human-AI interaction in the collaborative writing process are not well understood, and thus it remains largely unknown how human learning can be effectively supported with such cutting-edge GAI technologies. In this study, we aim to bridge this gap by investigating how humans employ GAI in collaborative writing and examining the interplay between the patterns of GAI usage and human writing behaviors. Considering the potential varying degrees to which people rely on GAI usage, we proposed to use Dynamic Time Warping time-series clustering for the identification and analysis of common temporal patterns in AI usage during the human-AI collaborative writing processes. Additionally, we incorporated Epistemic Network Analysis to reveal the correlation between GAI usage and human writing behaviors that reflect cognitive processes (i.e., knowledge telling, knowledge transformation, and cognitive presence), aiming to offer insights for developing better approaches and tools to support human to learn effectively via such human-AI collaborative writing activities. Our findings reveal four major distinct temporal patterns in AI utilization and highlight significant correlations between these patterns and human writing behaviors. These findings have significant implications for effectively supporting human learning with GAI in educational writing tasks.

Share

The predictive fairness of the selected AES methods for Economic Status. S represents Prompt-Specific. CP represents Cross-Prompt. The 'ns' label indicates non-significant results (p < 0.05). Lower values indicate a higher level of fairness.
The statistics of the dataset. The symbol ∼ de- notes "not". ED: Economic Disadvantage. ELL: English Language Learner (Learning English as a second language).
Experimental hyperparameters
The overall fairness performance of the nine selected AES methods for Gender. Cells in OSA, OSD, and CSD denote the number of prompts in which an AES method was diagnosed to have predictive bias, e.g., the number of cells with values other than 'ns'. Cells in MAED represent the average MAED of all prompts.
The overall fairness performance of the nine selected AES methods for English Language Learner Status. Cells in OSA, OSD, and CSD denote the number of prompts in which an AES method was diagnosed to have predictive bias, e.g., the number of cells with values other than 'ns'. Cells in MAED represent the average MAED of all prompts.
Unveiling the Tapestry of Automated Essay Scoring: A Comprehensive Investigation of Accuracy, Fairness, and Generalizability
  • Article
  • Full-text available

March 2024

·

21 Reads

Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Automatic Essay Scoring (AES) is a well-established educational pursuit that employs machine learning to evaluate student-authored essays. While much effort has been made in this area, current research primarily focuses on either (i) boosting the predictive accuracy of an AES model for a specific prompt (i.e., developing prompt-specific models), which often heavily relies on the use of the labeled data from the same target prompt; or (ii) assessing the applicability of AES models developed on non-target prompts to the intended target prompt (i.e., developing the AES models in a cross-prompt setting). Given the inherent bias in machine learning and its potential impact on marginalized groups, it is imperative to investigate whether such bias exists in current AES methods and, if identified, how it intervenes with an AES model's accuracy and generalizability. Thus, our study aimed to uncover the intricate relationship between an AES model's accuracy, fairness, and generalizability, contributing practical insights for developing effective AES models in real-world education. To this end, we meticulously selected nine prominent AES methods and evaluated their performance using seven distinct metrics on an open-sourced dataset, which contains over 25,000 essays and various demographic information about students such as gender, English language learner status, and economic status. Through extensive evaluations, we demonstrated that: (1) prompt-specific models tend to outperform their cross-prompt counterparts in terms of predictive accuracy; (2) prompt-specific models frequently exhibit a greater bias towards students of different economic statuses compared to cross-prompt models; (3) in the pursuit of generalizability, traditional machine learning models (e.g., SVM) coupled with carefully engineered features hold greater potential for achieving both high accuracy and fairness than complex neural network models.

Download

Towards Automatic Boundary Detection for Human-AI Collaborative Hybrid Essay in Education

March 2024

·

25 Reads

·

2 Citations

Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

The recent large language models (LLMs), e.g., ChatGPT, have been able to generate human-like and fluent responses when provided with specific instructions. While admitting the convenience brought by technological advancement, educators also have concerns that students might leverage LLMs to complete their writing assignments and pass them off as their original work. Although many AI content detection studies have been conducted as a result of such concerns, most of these prior studies modeled AI content detection as a classification problem, assuming that a text is either entirely human-written or entirely AI-generated. In this study, we investigated AI content detection in a rarely explored yet realistic setting where the text to be detected is collaboratively written by human and generative LLMs (termed as hybrid text for simplicity). We first formalized the detection task as identifying the transition points between human-written content and AI-generated content from a given hybrid text (boundary detection). We constructed a hybrid essay dataset by partially and randomly removing sentences from the original student-written essays and then instructing ChatGPT to fill in for the incomplete essays. Then we proposed a two-step detection approach where we (1) separated AI-generated content from human-written content during the encoder training process; and (2) calculated the distances between every two adjacent prototypes (a prototype is the mean of a set of consecutive sentences from the hybrid text in the embedding space) and assumed that the boundaries exist between the two adjacent prototypes that have the furthest distance from each other. Through extensive experiments, we observed the following main findings: (1) the proposed approach consistently outperformed the baseline methods across different experiment settings; (2) the encoder training process (i.e., step 1 of the above two-step approach) can significantly boost the performance of the proposed approach; (3) when detecting boundaries for single-boundary hybrid essays, the proposed approach could be enhanced by adopting a relatively large prototype size (i.e., the number of sentences needed to calculate a prototype), leading to a 22% improvement (against the best baseline method) in the In-Domain evaluation and an 18% improvement in the Out-of-Domain evaluation.


Towards Automatic Boundary Detection for Human-AI Hybrid Essay in Education

July 2023

·

50 Reads

Human-AI collaborative writing has been greatly facilitated with the help of modern large language models (LLM), e.g., ChatGPT. While admitting the convenience brought by technology advancement, educators also have concerns that students might leverage LLM to partially complete their writing assignment and pass off the human-AI hybrid text as their original work. Driven by such concerns, in this study, we investigated the automatic detection of Human-AI hybrid text in education, where we formalized the hybrid text detection as a boundary detection problem, i.e., identifying the transition points between human-written content and AI-generated content. We constructed a hybrid essay dataset by partially removing sentences from the original student-written essays and then instructing ChatGPT to fill in for the incomplete essays. Then we proposed a two-step detection approach where we (1) Separated AI-generated content from human-written content during the embedding learning process; and (2) Calculated the distances between every two adjacent prototypes (a prototype is the mean of a set of consecutive sentences from the hybrid text in the embedding space) and assumed that the boundaries exist between the two prototypes that have the furthest distance from each other. Through extensive experiments, we summarized the following main findings: (1) The proposed approach consistently outperformed the baseline methods across different experiment settings; (2) The embedding learning process (i.e., step 1) can significantly boost the performance of the proposed approach; (3) When detecting boundaries for single-boundary hybrid essays, the performance of the proposed approach could be enhanced by adopting a relatively large prototype size, leading to a $22$\% improvement (against the second-best baseline method) in the in-domain setting and an $18$\% improvement in the out-of-domain setting.

Citations (1)


... For example, LLM can be maliciously used to generate fake news (Zellers et al., 2019). There are also some concerns raised among scientists (Ma et al., 2023) and educators (Zeng et al., 2023) that the usage of LLMs will devalue the process of learning and research. 1 https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt ...

Reference:

DeepPavlov at SemEval-2024 Task 8: Leveraging Transfer Learning for Detecting Boundaries of Machine-Generated Texts
Towards Automatic Boundary Detection for Human-AI Collaborative Hybrid Essay in Education

Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence