Why apply AI to figure skating? Skaters can always keep pushing, higher, faster, stronger. OOFSkate is all about helping skaters figure out a way to rotate a little bit faster in their jumps or jump a little bit higher. The system helps skaters catch things that perhaps could pass an eye test, but that might allow them to target some high-value areas of opportunity. The artistic side of skating is much harder to evaluate than the technical elements because it's subjective.

Novice and expert users have different systematic preferences in task-oriented dialogues. However, whether catering to these preferences actually improves user experience and task performance remains understudied. To investigate the effects of expertise-based personalization, we first built a version of an enterprise AI assistant with passive personalization. We then conducted a user study where participants completed timed exams, aided by the two versions of the AI assistant. Preliminary results indicate that passive personalization helps reduce task load and improve assistant perception, but reveal task-specific limitations that can be addressed through providing more user agency. These findings underscore the importance of combining active and passive personalization to optimize user experience and effectiveness in enterprise task-oriented environments.

Entrepreneurship requires navigating open-ended, ill-defined problems: identifying risks, challenging assumptions, and making strategic decisions under deep uncertainty. Novice founders often struggle with these metacognitive demands, while mentors face limited time and visibility to provide tailored support. We present a human-AI coaching system that combines a domain-specific cognitive model of entrepreneurial risk with a large language model (LLM) to proactively scaffold both novice and mentor thinking. The system proactively poses diagnostic questions that challenge novices' thinking and helps both novices and mentors plan for more focused and emotionally attuned meetings. Critically, mentors can inspect and modify the underlying cognitive model, shaping the logic of the system to reflect their evolving needs. Through an exploratory field deployment, we found that using the system supported novice metacognition, helped mentors plan emotionally attuned strategies, and improved meeting depth, intentionality, and focus--while also surfaced key tensions around trust, misdiagnosis, and expectations of AI. We contribute design principles for proactive AI systems that scaffold metacognition and human-human collaboration in complex, ill-defined domains, offering implications for similar domains like healthcare, education, and knowledge work.

Human teaching effort is a significant bottleneck for the broader applicability of interactive imitation learning. To reduce the number of required queries, existing methods employ active learning to query the human teacher only in uncertain, risky, or novel situations. However, during these queries, the novice's planned actions are not utilized despite containing valuable information, such as the novice's capabilities, as well as corresponding uncertainty levels. To this end, we allow the novice to say: "I plan to do this, but I am uncertain." We introduce the Active Skill-level Data Aggregation (ASkDAgger) framework, which leverages teacher feedback on the novice plan in three key ways: (1) S-Aware Gating (SAG): Adjusts the gating threshold to track sensitivity, specificity, or a minimum success rate; (2) Foresight Interactive Experience Replay (FIER), which recasts valid and relabeled novice action plans into demonstrations; and (3) Prioritized Interactive Experience Replay (PIER), which prioritizes replay based on uncertainty, novice success, and demonstration age. Together, these components balance query frequency with failure incidence, reduce the number of required demonstration annotations, improve generalization, and speed up adaptation to changing domains. We validate the effectiveness of ASkDAgger through language-conditioned manipulation tasks in both simulation and real-world environments. Code, data, and videos are available at https://askdagger.github.io.

High-quality, multi-turn instructional dialogues between novices and experts are essential for developing AI systems that support teaching, learning, and decision-making. These dialogues often involve scaffolding -- the process by which an expert supports a novice's thinking through questions, feedback, and step-by-step guidance. However, such data are scarce due to privacy concerns in recording and the vulnerability inherent in help-seeking. We present SimInstruct, a scalable, expert-in-the-loop tool for collecting scaffolding dialogues. Using teaching development coaching as an example domain, SimInstruct simulates novice instructors via LLMs, varying their teaching challenges and LLM's persona traits, while human experts provide multi-turn feedback, reasoning, and instructional support. This design enables the creation of realistic, pedagogically rich dialogues without requiring real novice participants. Our results reveal that persona traits, such as extroversion and introversion, meaningfully influence how experts engage. Compared to real mentoring recordings, SimInstruct dialogues demonstrate comparable pedagogical relevance and cognitive depth. Experts also reported the process as engaging and reflective, improving both data quality and their own professional insight. We further fine-tuned a LLaMA model to be an expert model using the augmented dataset, which outperformed GPT-4o in instructional quality. Our analysis highlights GPT-4o's limitations in weak reflective questioning, overuse of generic praise, a condescending tone, and a tendency to overwhelm novices with excessive suggestions.

Augmented reality (AR) is an effective tool in robotic surgery education as it combines exploratory learning with three-dimensional guidance. However, existing AR systems require expert supervision and do not account for differences in the mentor and mentee robot configurations. To enable novices to train outside the operating room while receiving expert-informed guidance, we present dV-STEAR: an open-source system that plays back task-aligned expert demonstrations without assuming identical setup joint positions between expert and novice. Pose estimation was rigorously quantified, showing a registration error of 3.86 (SD=2.01)mm. In a user study (N=24), dV-STEAR significantly improved novice performance on tasks from the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery. In a single-handed ring-over-wire task, dV-STEAR increased completion speed (p=0.03) and reduced collision time (p=0.01) compared to dry-lab training alone. During a pick-and-place task, it improved success rates (p=0.004). Across both tasks, participants using dV-STEAR exhibited significantly more balanced hand use and reported lower frustration levels. This work presents a novel educational tool implemented on the da Vinci Research Kit, demonstrates its effectiveness in teaching novices, and builds the foundation for further AR integration into robot-assisted surgery.

The subjective evaluation of early stage engineering designs, such as conceptual sketches, traditionally relies on human experts. However, expert evaluations are time-consuming, expensive, and sometimes inconsistent. Recent advances in vision-language models (VLMs) offer the potential to automate design assessments, but it is crucial to ensure that these AI ``judges'' perform on par with human experts. However, no existing framework assesses expert equivalence. This paper introduces a rigorous statistical framework to determine whether an AI judge's ratings match those of human experts. We apply this framework in a case study evaluating four VLM-based judges on key design metrics (uniqueness, creativity, usefulness, and drawing quality). These AI judges employ various in-context learning (ICL) techniques, including uni- vs. multimodal prompts and inference-time reasoning. The same statistical framework is used to assess three trained novices for expert-equivalence. Results show that the top-performing AI judge, using text- and image-based ICL with reasoning, achieves expert-level agreement for uniqueness and drawing quality and outperforms or matches trained novices across all metrics. In 6/6 runs for both uniqueness and creativity, and 5/6 runs for both drawing quality and usefulness, its agreement with experts meets or exceeds that of the majority of trained novices. These findings suggest that reasoning-supported VLM models can achieve human-expert equivalence in design evaluation. This has implications for scaling design evaluation in education and practice, and provides a general statistical framework for validating AI judges in other domains requiring subjective content evaluation.

In this paper we describe the development and evaluation of AITK, the Artificial Intelligence Toolkit. This open-source project contains both Python libraries and computational essays (Jupyter notebooks) that together are designed to allow a diverse audience with little or no background in AI to interact with a variety of AI tools, exploring in more depth how they function, visualizing their outcomes, and gaining a better understanding of their ethical implications. These notebooks have been piloted at multiple institutions in a variety of humanities courses centered on the theme of responsible AI. In addition, we conducted usability testing of AITK. Our pilot studies and usability testing results indicate that AITK is easy to navigate and effective at helping users gain a better understanding of AI. Our goal, in this time of rapid innovations in AI, is for AITK to provide an accessible resource for faculty from any discipline looking to incorporate AI topics into their courses and for anyone eager to learn more about AI on their own.

There's no arguing that AI still has quite a few unreliable moments, but one would hope that at least its evaluations would be accurate. However, last week Google allegedly instructed contract workers evaluating Gemini not to skip any prompts, regardless of their expertise, TechCrunch reports based on internal guidance it viewed. Google shared a preview of Gemini 2.0 earlier this month. Google reportedly instructed GlobalLogic, an outsourcing firm whose contractors evaluate AI-generated output, not to have reviewers skip prompts outside of their expertise. Previously, contractors could choose to skip any prompt that fell far out of their expertise -- such as asking a doctor about laws.

The outstanding capabilities of large language models (LLMs) render them a crucial component in various autonomous agent systems. While traditional methods depend on the inherent knowledge of LLMs without fine-tuning, more recent approaches have shifted toward the reinforcement learning strategy to further enhance agents' ability to solve complex interactive tasks with environments and tools. However, previous approaches are constrained by the sparse reward issue, where existing datasets solely provide a final scalar reward for each multi-step reasoning chain, potentially leading to ineffectiveness and inefficiency in policy learning. In this paper, we introduce StepAgent, which utilizes step-wise reward to optimize the agent's reinforcement learning process. Inheriting the spirit of novice-to-expert theory, we first compare the actions of the expert and the agent to automatically generate intermediate rewards for fine-grained optimization. Additionally, we propose implicit-reward and inverse reinforcement learning techniques to facilitate agent reflection and policy adjustment. Further theoretical analysis demonstrates that the action distribution of the agent can converge toward the expert action distribution over multiple training cycles. Experimental results across various datasets indicate that StepAgent outperforms existing baseline methods.