arXiv subjects

Anukriti Kumar

Publications and source records attributed to Anukriti Kumar.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

U.S. State Guidance on AI in K-12 Education: A Comparative Content and Citation Analysis

In the years following the public release of ChatGPT in late 2022, more than half of U.S. states have published formal guidelines around AI usage in K-12 education, creating a record of largely independent state education departments responding to a shared technological disruption. In this work, we analyze publicly available AI usage guidance documents from 35 states in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. We compare the guidance in these documents across various dimensions, including pedagogy and instruction, audience, actionability, workforce and career readiness, responsible use and equity, and alignment with state-level demographics and administrative capacity. Finally, we investigate who authored these documents and their cited sources, identifying epistemic foundations underlying their claims. We find that guidance priorities converge on topics anchored in laws such as data privacy and academic integrity, each addressed in 97% of documents. While most documents mention equity of access (86%) and algorithmic bias (97%), fewer discuss specific marginalized populations. Across documents, there is a common framing of urgency around AI integration to prepare students for workforce readiness (86%) and promote loosely-defined personalized learning (86%), which is not matched by specific guidance for capacity-building, actionability, or accountability. State priorities show no relationship to state demographics, capacity, or partisanship. Instead, we identify notable interdependencies between states with shared citations to non-profit organizations like TeachAI and Code.org, with some states reproducing TeachAI's model guidance near-verbatim, and peer citations concentrating on a few early states such as Oregon and Washington. No state includes parents as contributors on these documents, and only five include students.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Benchmarking PDF Accessibility Evaluation A Dataset and Framework for Assessing Automated and LLM-Based Approaches for Accessibility Testing

PDFs remain the dominant format for scholarly communication, despite significant accessibility challenges for blind and low-vision users. While various tools attempt to evaluate PDF accessibility, there is no standardized methodology to evaluate how different accessibility assessment approaches perform. Our work addresses this critical gap by introducing a novel benchmark dataset of scholarly PDFs with expert-validated accessibility annotations across seven criteria (alternative text quality, logical reading order, semantic tagging, table structure, functional hyperlinks, color contrast, and font readability), and a four-category evaluation framework with standardized labels (Passed, Failed, Not Present, Cannot Tell) to systematically assess accessibility evaluation approaches. Using our evaluation framework, we explore whether large language models (LLMs) are capable of supporting automated accessibility evaluation. We benchmark five LLMs, which demonstrate varying capabilities in correctly assessing different accessibility criteria, with GPT-4-Turbo achieving the highest overall accuracy (0.85). However, all models struggled in correctly categorizing documents with Not Present and Cannot Tell accessibility labels, particularly for alt text quality assessment. Our qualitative comparison with standard automated checkers reveals complementary strengths: rule-based tools excel at technical verification, while LLMs better evaluate semantic appropriateness and contextual relevance. Based on our findings, we propose a hybrid approach that would combine automated checkers, LLM evaluation, and human assessment as a future strategy for PDF accessibility evaluation.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Uncovering the New Accessibility Crisis in Scholarly PDFs

Most scholarly works are distributed online in PDF format, which can present significant accessibility challenges for blind and low-vision readers. To characterize the scope of this issue, we perform a large-scale analysis of 20K open- and closed-access scholarly PDFs published between 2014-2023 sampled across broad fields of study. We assess the accessibility compliance of these documents based on six criteria: Default Language, Appropriate Nesting, Tagged PDF, Table Headers, Tab Order, and Alt-Text; selected based on prior work and the SIGACCESS Guide for Accessible PDFs. To ensure robustness, we corroborate our findings through automated accessibility checking, manual evaluation of alt text, comparative assessments with an alternate accessibility checker, and manual assessments with screen readers. Our findings reveal that less than 3.2% of tested PDFs satisfy all criteria, while a large majority (74.9%) fail to meet any criteria at all. Worse yet, we observe a concerning drop in PDF accessibility since 2019, largely among open-access papers, suggesting that efforts to improve document accessibility have not taken hold and are on a backslide. While investigating factors contributing to this drop, we identify key associations between fields of study, creation platforms used, models of publishing, and PDF accessibility compliance, suggesting that publisher and author choices significantly influence document accessibility. This paper highlights a new crisis in scholarly document accessibility and the need for a multi-faceted approach to address the problem, involving the development of better tools, enhanced author education, and systemic changes in academic publishing practices.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2022

ChartParser: Automatic Chart Parsing for Print-Impaired

Infographics are often an integral component of scientific documents for reporting qualitative or quantitative findings as they make it much simpler to comprehend the underlying complex information. However, their interpretation continues to be a challenge for the blind, low-vision, and other print-impaired (BLV) individuals. In this paper, we propose ChartParser, a fully automated pipeline that leverages deep learning, OCR, and image processing techniques to extract all figures from a research paper, classify them into various chart categories (bar chart, line chart, etc.) and obtain relevant information from them, specifically bar charts (including horizontal, vertical, stacked horizontal and stacked vertical charts) which already have several exciting challenges. Finally, we present the retrieved content in a tabular format that is screen-reader friendly and accessible to the BLV users. We present a thorough evaluation of our approach by applying our pipeline to sample real-world annotated bar charts from research papers.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2022

Document Navigability: A Need for Print-Impaired

Printed documents continue to be a challenge for blind, low-vision, and other print-disabled (BLV) individuals. In this paper, we focus on the specific problem of (in-)accessibility of internal references to citations, footnotes, figures, tables and equations. While sighted users can flip to the referenced content and flip back in seconds, linear audio narration that BLV individuals rely on makes following these references extremely hard. We propose a vision based technique to locate the referenced content and extract metadata needed to (in subsequent work) inline a content summary into the audio narration. We apply our technique to citations in scientific documents and find it works well both on born-digital as well as scanned documents.

cs.CV↗