Artificial intelligence is playing an increasingly important role in supporting decision-making, particularly in educational contexts, where it serves as a critical tool to assist teacher judgment and optimize instructional decisions. However, limited research has examined how different AI-assisted decision-making paradigms influence the Performance of human-AI collaboration, as well as the underlying psychological mechanisms and causal pathways. Therefore, this study investigated 59 pre-service teachers to examine how AI-assisted decision-making paradigms and human-AI consistency influenced their psychological states and task performance. Specifically, this study employed a two-factor mixed experimental design, with the AI-assisted decision-making paradigms as the between-subjects factor and human-AI consistency as the within-subjects factor. Data were analyzed using the Bayesian cumulative link mixed model and structural equation modeling. The results reveal that AI-assisted decision-making paradigms do not have a significant direct effect on task performance. However, when the moderating role of human-AI decision consistency is taken into account, the effect of AI-assisted decision-making paradigms on task performance can exert its influence indirectly through a sequential psychological pathway involving users’ confidence and their trust in the AI. Consistency between human and AI decisions not only significantly enhances users’ trust in AI, confidence, and task performance, but the proportion of consistent decisions also significantly moderates the impact of AI-assisted decision-making paradigms on users’ confidence levels. Notably, our findings indicate that users maintain a moderately level of trust in AI even when their decisions diverge from those of AI. In summary, this study highlights the mediating mechanism by which AI-assisted decision-making paradigms influence task performance through psychological states and identifies the moderating role of human-AI consistency in this pathway. These findings advance the theoretical understanding of human-AI interaction models in educational contexts and offer mechanistic insights to guide the optimization of instructional AI systems.

The capacity for social reasoning, particularly Theory of Mind (ToM), is a foundational prerequisite for aligning Large Language Models (LLMs) with human values. However, current evaluations are predominantly confined to simplistic, short-text scenarios, obscuring their true capabilities and potential failure modes in complex, long-range social dynamics. To address this deficit, we introduce MovieGraph-ToM, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating long-range ToM and social cognition within extended, multimodal narratives. We employ a "scaffold-and-probe" methodology: we construct a ground-truth Social-Causal Graph offline, which maps the narrative's latent mental states and causal chains. During evaluation, the model is denied access to this graph and must reason directly from raw multimodal inputs. This decoupling forces genuine inference over superficial pattern matching. Reasoning is probed via a hierarchical questioning framework designed to differentiate spontaneous understanding from logical robustness. Our empirical results reveal systematic vulnerabilities in even state-of-the-art models. We identify a critical "multiple-choice pitfall," where accuracy plummets against well-crafted distractors, and a stark "generative-discriminative divide," where models fail to construct coherent explanations for answers they correctly identify. These findings highlight a latent risk, as models that feign comprehension could lead to unpredictable and misaligned behaviors. MovieGraph-ToM thus offers a rigorous platform for assessing and advancing the robust social intelligence required for safely aligned AI systems.

Knowledge tracing assesses students’ mastery and predicts future performance based on historical learning data. Traditional methods primarily rely on predefined static associations between concepts and exercises, which struggle to capture potential causal relationships and dynamic learning patterns, leading to reduced prediction accuracy and limited interpretability. To address these issues, this paper proposes a novel dynamic causal inference framework that integrates Gumbel-Softmax sampling with uncertainty estimation, transforming discrete causal relationships into differentiable continuous weights, and quantifying model uncertainty to enhance robustness against noisy data and improve interpretability. Additionally, inspired by item response theory, the model dynamically adjusts students’ latent states by modeling the interaction between student ability and exercises difficulty. Experimental results on three widely-used benchmarks demonstrate that this method achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance in prediction accuracy while also generating interpretable causal relationship weights that provide insights into knowledge acquisition patterns.

Large Language Model (LLM) has shown amazing abilities in reasoning tasks, theory of mind (ToM) has been tested in many studies as part of reasoning tasks, and social learning, which is closely related to ToM, is still lack of investigation. However, the test methods and materials make the test results unconvincing. We propose a dynamic gamified assessment (DGA) and hierarchical social learning measurement to test ToM and social learning capacities in LLMs. The test for ToM consists of five parts. First, we extract ToM tasks from ToM experiments and then design game rules to satisfy the ToM task requirement. After that, we design ToM questions to match the game’s rules and use these to generate test materials. Finally, we go through the above steps to test the model. To assess the social learning ability, we introduce a novel set of social rules (three in total). Experiment results demonstrate that, except GPT-4, LLMs performed poorly on the ToM test but showed a certain level of social learning ability in social learning measurement.