A typical solution isdirect democracywhich decides based on amajority vote, the so called "wisdom of the crowd."

Cognitive trust and the belief that a robot is capable of accurately performing tasks, are recognized as central factors in fostering high-quality human-robot interactions. It is well established that performance factors such as the robot's competence and its reliability shape cognitive trust. Recent studies suggest that affective factors, such as robotic attentiveness, also play a role in building cognitive trust. This work explores the interplay between these two factors that shape cognitive trust. Specifically, we evaluated whether different combinations of robotic competence and attentiveness introduce a compensatory mechanism, where one factor compensates for the lack of the other. In the experiment, participants performed a search task with a robotic dog in a 2x2 experimental design that included two factors: competence (high or low) and attentiveness (high or low). The results revealed that high attentiveness can compensate for low competence. Participants who collaborated with a highly attentive robot that performed poorly reported trust levels comparable to those working with a highly competent robot. When the robot did not demonstrate attentiveness, low competence resulted in a substantial decrease in cognitive trust. The findings indicate that building cognitive trust in human-robot interaction may be more complex than previously believed, involving emotional processes that are typically overlooked. We highlight an affective compensatory mechanism that adds a layer to consider alongside traditional competence-based models of cognitive trust.

We address the problem of fair classification in settings where data is scarce and unbalanced across demographic groups. Such low-data regimes are common in domains like medical imaging, where false negatives can have fatal consequences. We propose a novel approach \emph{OxEnsemble} for efficiently training ensembles and enforcing fairness in these low-data regimes. Unlike other approaches, we aggregate predictions across ensemble members, each trained to satisfy fairness constraints. By construction, \emph{OxEnsemble} is both data-efficient, carefully reusing held-out data to enforce fairness reliably, and compute-efficient, requiring little more compute than used to fine-tune or evaluate an existing model. We validate this approach with new theoretical guarantees. Experimentally, our approach yields more consistent outcomes and stronger fairness-accuracy trade-offs than existing methods across multiple challenging medical imaging classification datasets.

Abstract--In this letter, we investigate whether classical function allocation--the principle of assigning tasks to either a human or a machine--holds for physical Human-Robot Collaboration, which is important for providing insights for Industry 5.0 to guide how to best augment rather than replace workers. This study empirically tests the applicability of Fitts' List within physical Human-Robot Collaboration, by conducting a user study (N=26, within-subject design) to evaluate four distinct allocations of position/force control between human and robot in an abstract blending task. We hypothesize that the function in which humans control the position achieves better performance and receives higher user ratings. When allocating position control to the human and force control to the robot, compared to the opposite case, we observed a significant improvement in preventing overblending. This was also perceived better in terms of physical demand and overall system acceptance, while participants experienced greater autonomy, more engagement and less frustration. An interesting insight was that the supervisory role (when the robot controls both position and force) was rated second best in terms of subjective acceptance. Another surprising insight was that if position control was delegated to the robot, the participants perceived much lower autonomy than when the force control was delegated to the robot. These findings empirically support applying Fitts' principles to static function allocation for physical collaboration, while also revealing important nuanced user experience trade-offs, particularly regarding perceived autonomy when delegating position control. Received 7 May 2025; accepted 25 October 2025.

Large Language Models and multi-agent systems have shown promise in decomposing complex tasks, yet they struggle with long-horizon reasoning tasks and escalating computation cost. This work introduces a hierarchical multi-agent architecture that distributes reasoning across a 64*64 grid of lightweight agents, supported by a selective oracle. A spatial curriculum progressively expands the operational region of the grid, ensuring that agents master easier central tasks before tackling harder peripheral ones. To improve reliability, the system integrates Negative Log-Likelihood as a measure of confidence, allowing the curriculum to prioritize regions where agents are both accurate and well calibrated. A Thompson Sampling curriculum manager adaptively chooses training zones based on competence and NLL-driven reward signals. We evaluate the approach on a spatially grounded Tower of Hanoi benchmark, which mirrors the long-horizon structure of many robotic manipulation and planning tasks. Results demonstrate improved stability, reduced oracle usage, and stronger long-range reasoning from distributed agent cooperation.

Recent reinforcement learning (RL) techniques have yielded impressive reasoning improvements in language models, yet it remains unclear whether post-training truly extends a model's reasoning ability beyond what it acquires during pre-training. A central challenge is the lack of control in modern training pipelines: large-scale pre-training corpora are opaque, mid-training is often underexamined, and RL objectives interact with unknown prior knowledge in complex ways. To resolve this ambiguity, we develop a fully controlled experimental framework that isolates the causal contributions of pre-training, mid-training, and RL-based post-training. Our approach employs synthetic reasoning tasks with explicit atomic operations, parseable step-by-step reasoning traces, and systematic manipulation of training distributions. We evaluate models along two axes: extrapolative generalization to more complex compositions and contextual generalization across surface contexts. Using this framework, we reconcile competing views on RL's effectiveness. We show that: 1) RL produces true capability gains (pass@128) only when pre-training leaves sufficient headroom and when RL data target the model's edge of competence, tasks at the boundary that are difficult but not yet out of reach. 2) Contextual generalization requires minimal yet sufficient pre-training exposure, after which RL can reliably transfer. 3) Mid-training significantly enhances performance under fixed compute compared with RL only, demonstrating its central but underexplored role in training pipelines. 4) Process-level rewards reduce reward hacking and improve reasoning fidelity. Together, these results clarify the interplay between pre-training, mid-training, and RL, offering a foundation for understanding and improving reasoning LM training strategies.

As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes increasingly integrated into education, understanding how students perceive its risks is essential for supporting responsible and effective adoption. This research aimed to examine the relationships between perceived AI competence and risks among Finnish K-12 upper secondary students (n = 163) by utilizing a co-occurrence analysis. Students reported their self-perceived AI competence and concerns related to AI across systemic, institutional, and personal domains. The findings showed that students with lower competence emphasized personal and learning-related risks, such as reduced creativity, lack of critical thinking, and misuse, whereas higher-competence students focused more on systemic and institutional risks, including bias, inaccuracy, and cheating. These differences suggest that students' self-reported AI competence is related to how they evaluate both the risks and opportunities associated with artificial intelligence in education (AIED). The results of this study highlight the need for educational institutions to incorporate AI literacy into their curricula, provide teacher guidance, and inform policy development to ensure personalized opportunities for utilization and equitable integration of AI into K-12 education.

The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) language technologies, particularly generative AI (GenAI) chatbots accessible via conversational interfaces, is transforming digital interactions. While these tools hold societal promise, they also risk widening digital divides due to uneven adoption and low awareness of their limitations. This study presents the first comprehensive empirical mapping of GenAI adoption, usage patterns, and literacy in Italy, based on newly collected survey data from 1,906 Italian-speaking adults. Our findings reveal widespread adoption for both work and personal use, including sensitive tasks like emotional support and medical advice. Crucially, GenAI is supplanting other technologies to become a primary information source: this trend persists despite low user digital literacy, posing a risk as users struggle to recognize errors or misinformation. Moreover, we identify a significant gender divide -- particularly pronounced in older generations -- where women are half as likely to adopt GenAI and use it less frequently than men. While we find literacy to be a key predictor of adoption, it only partially explains this disparity, suggesting that other barriers are at play. Overall, our data provide granular insights into the multipurpose usage of GenAI, highlighting the dual need for targeted educational initiatives and further investigation into the underlying barriers to equitable participation that competence alone cannot explain.

Recent approaches to evaluating Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) typically summarize a system's capability using the arithmetic mean of its proficiencies across multiple cognitive domains. While simple, this implicitly assumes compensability: exceptional performance in some areas can offset severe deficiencies in others. Genuine general intelligence, however, requires coherent sufficiency: balanced competence across all essential faculties. We introduce a coherence-based measure of AGI that integrates the generalized mean over a continuum of compensability exponents. This yields an area-under-the-curve (AUC) metric spanning arithmetic, geometric, and harmonic regimes, quantifying how robust an evaluated capability remains as compensability assumptions become stricter. Unlike the arithmetic mean, which rewards specialization, the AUC penalizes imbalance and exposes bottlenecks that constrain performance. To illustrate the framework, we apply it to cognitive profiles derived from the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model, showing how coherence-based aggregation highlights imbalances that are obscured by arithmetic averaging. As a second, independent example, we apply the same methodology to a set of 17 heterogeneous benchmarks, demonstrating how coherence-based evaluation can reveal unevenness even in narrower task collections. These examples show that the proposed approach offers a principled, interpretable, and stricter foundation for measuring progress toward AGI.