Pragmatic Competence

We present ORQA, a method for testing occupation-level knowledge in large language models. Prior methods either map abstract LLM skills to occupations via task definitions or utilize expert knowledge which is difficult to obtain at scale and expensive. ORQA complements both of these methods by connecting O*NET occupations to trusted occupation-specific websites (such as regulatory agencies, licensing bodies, professional organizations, and government publications) and converting these into source-traceable question-answer pairs. A combination of an automated pipeline and human review produces a set of high quality questions about occupations. The question set created via our method covers 116 occupations from all 21 major groups in the SOC, with 480 questions sourced from 187 different websites. Each question is designed to probe a real-world skill question that is relevant to the occupation in question. We test 15 state-of-the-art frontier and open-weight models via this method. Claude Opus 4.6, GPT-5.4 and Claude Sonnet 4.6 all perform the best at approximately 58-62% while smaller open-weight models achieve approximately 33-41% performance. Performance varies significantly across occupations. Healthcare-related occupations achieve the highest performance (78%) while Office and Administrative Support achieve approximately 40%. Performance on individual occupations (e.g. Sheet Metal Workers and Fish and Game Wardens) is essentially zero. We also find that open-ended questions and weighting by wage bill do not significantly affect the ranking of models on this benchmark. We believe that leveraging existing trusted occupation-specific information to test LLM knowledge in professional domains may be a scalable and useful method for evaluating occupation-level AI performance in the future. Results and data are available at orqabench.org.

AI literacy provides foundational competencies that support ethical, transparent, and sustainable technological development, although higher-order capabilities such as governance, critical evaluation, and strategic decision-making extend beyond basic literacy into advanced levels of AI competency. This study positions AI literacy as a governance capacity that complements and strengthens all 17 SDGs. It introduces a six-level taxonomy of artificial intelligence reasoning and ethics that extends traditional learning models by incorporating ethical judgement and strategic foresight. This taxonomy forms the foundation of an integrated framework linking education, governance, and sustainable development. A survey of 300 participants from diverse professional backgrounds within a national context which reveals strong technical awareness but limited ethical and governance readiness, highlighting critical gaps in public capacity to manage artificial intelligence responsibly. Findings show that ethical reasoning and reflective thinking are the strongest predictors of sustainable and trustworthy artificial intelligence use. The study proposed to embed literacy-based competencies into curricula, institutional policies, and governance mechanisms to accelerate equitable and responsible progress toward sustainable development goals

This paper presents an integrated approach to modeling human competencies by combining the theoretical foundations of cognitive architectures with principles from Human Factors Ergonomics (HFE). Through a comparative analysis of established cognitive models-SOAR, ACT-R, LIDA, and COCOM-we synthesize a tailored architecture designed to address the complexities of human-machine interaction (HMI) in dynamic environments. By contextualizing this model within ergonomic frameworks, we elucidate the mechanisms underlying decision-making, skill acquisition, and adaptive behavior, bridging the gap between cognitive theory and applied system design. Our framework is empirically grounded in industrial robotics applications, where operator expertise, normative knowledge, and real-time feedback loops are critical. The proposed architecture not only enhances the cognitive alignment of HMI systems but also provides a scalable methodology for designing intelligent, human-centered interfaces in high-stakes environments. This work advances both the theoretical understanding of human competencies and the practical implementation of adaptive, ergonomically optimized systems.

Real-world communication often requires pragmatic reasoning: interpreting meanings implied through context and cultural convention rather than stated literally. Existing pragmatic evaluation remains largely limited to English and high-resource languages, leaving Indic languages unexplored despite their linguistic and cultural diversity. We introduce VakyArth, the first pragmatic benchmark for Indic languages, designed as a diagnostic evaluation covering Hindi, Punjabi, Tamil, and Malayalam. VakyArth evaluates models across five phenomena: deixis, speech acts, implicature, social pragmatics, and coherence; through multiple-choice questions, natural language inference, and translation, with all items authored by native speakers. Across multilingual large language models (LLMs) of varying families and sizes, we find consistent failures on pragmatic meanings rooted in Indic linguistic and cultural conventions. Our analysis shows systematic differences across languages and tasks: MCQ accuracy exceeds NLI accuracy in all model-language combinations, translation performance does not reliably track pragmatic understanding, and Indo-Aryan languages show a translation advantage over Dravidian languages. We further show that automatic translation metrics can miss fluent but pragmatically unfaithful outputs, especially for implicature and deixis.

When a question has valid answers under different normative frameworks, a language model must decide which framework to use and whether it can answer correctly within it. We call this setting normative pluralism and study it in Islamic finance using a four-choice taxonomy that separates framework selection from within-framework correctness. This separation reveals the stereotype trap: a cultural cue steers a model toward one framework, but the model selects an incorrect answer within that framework. Across twelve models, two languages, and fifty demographic signals, cultural cues change framework selection and reveal substantial differences in accuracy, especially among non-frontier models. Under the strongest signal, large open-weight models select the Islamic framework 97% of the time. A two-choice evaluation would report near-perfect alignment, although 57--66% of those selections are incorrect. These findings motivate, but do not directly test, the competence-conditioned routing hypothesis: models may favor frameworks where they are more accurate, while cultural cues may expose framework-specific competence gaps.

Professional agent tasks often depend on conventions that are absent from public corpora, yet benchmarks rarely control whether an agent has access to those conventions. We introduce a knowledge-gated task-construction protocol that separates a task instruction from a compact artefact containing private conventions, reference tables, and utility operators. Construction-time provenance, byte-identical task instructions across the provided- and withheld-artefact conditions, leak audits, and executable witnesses make dependence on the artefact explicit and testable. Across fifteen calibration tasks, one frontier agent configuration achieves a 68.0% pass rate with the artefact and 0% without it; on one task, a plausible but incorrect artefact also yields 0% across five trials. Deterministic solvers and rule corpora provide exact ground truth for structured tasks, while named criterion-level rubrics support outputs that cannot be checked by a single executable oracle. A configuration-relative calibration screen retains seven tasks satisfying our five-trial empirical knowledge-gating screen. These experiments validate the behavior of the construction protocol; they do not establish that the retained tasks improve post-training. We publicly release part of the task suite and supporting tooling at https://github.com/DatagridsAI/Knowledge-Gated-Task-Construction.

The convergence of artificial intelligence (AI), Industrial Internet of Things, cyber-physical systems, and advanced robotics is reshaping manufacturing faster than engineering curricula can adapt, widening the gap between the competencies required on the shop floor and those delivered by traditional engineering and technology education. This paper proposes a Workforce Readiness Level (WRL) framework, which adapts the Technology Readiness Level scale into nine progressive competency stages and a four-pillar rubric, digital and AI literacy, cyber-physical systems fluency, human-machine collaboration, and data-driven decision making, aggregated through a composite stage score and a cohort-level workforce-readiness index under a ``no-thin-pillar'' rule. The framework is instantiated at a university smart-manufacturing teaching laboratory and draws on 89 sponsored capstone projects delivered over four semesters, four of which are analyzed in depth. Four pillars jointly span the relevant ABET student outcomes. Across the highlighted cohorts the workforce-readiness index ranged from 5.2 to 6.4, and the no-thin-pillar rule was diagnostically informative in three of the four cases and the binding certification constraint in one, repeatedly surfacing cyber-physical and data-driven-decision gaps concealed behind strong analytics profiles; advancement to the highest stages was gated by industry-embedded experience rather than additional coursework. WRL offers educators, accreditation bodies, and regional workforce systems a common, evidence-based instrument for diagnosing and advancing workforce readiness; future work will calibrate pillar weights and test reliability and predictive validity.

Operational Design Domain (ODD) specifications describe where an automated driving system (ADS) is permitted to operate, but they do not prescribe what the ADS must demonstrably do once deployed within that domain. This gap between operating condition specification and behavioral validation represents a critical unresolved challenge in ADS safety assurance. This paper presents a structured, standards-grounded taxonomy of 21 behavioral competencies organized across three operational domains-Highway (HWY), Urban (URB), and Hub (HUB)-derived systematically from the PEGASUS six-layer model-based ODD. Each behavior is decomposed along longitudinal and lateral control axes and characterized against a four-property framework: Safety (gap maintenance, conflict avoidance, kinematic stability), Compliance (legal rules and behavioral norms), Comfort (rider dynamics and trust), and Efficiency (mission completion and product-level metrics). We further demonstrate that the crossing of ODD layer parameterizations with behavioral competency specifications yields concrete scenario families suitable for systematic behavioral testing and SOTIF coverage evidence. The taxonomy is grounded in AVSC00008202111, SAE J3237, and SAE J3016, and is validated as an operational specification layer through its deployment in a rule-enforced trajectory optimization system. The Hub domain is identified as a structurally distinct, underspecified domain warranting dedicated research attention.

Rejection sampling fine-tuning (RFT) is widely used to train code agents by generating trajectories on verifiable software engineering tasks, retaining those that pass the tests, and fine-tuning on the successful rollouts. However, even strong code agents repeatedly fail on a substantial fraction of such tasks, and standard RFT simply discards these failures. The discarded samples are precisely the hardest and most informative ones, drawn from verifiable instances that are costly to curate. Stronger base models may reduce the number of failures, but the remaining hard cases still define the frontier for further improvement. We propose FailForge, an agentic framework that converts failed rollouts into training signal. For each failed instance, an agent diagnoses the failure from error feedback and execution traces, distills the diagnosis into a concise and actionable skill, and injects the skill into the agent context for a guided second attempt. Trajectories that succeed under skill guidance are folded back into the RFT corpus. Crucially, the skill is removed at training time, so the model internalizes the recovered behavior rather than relying on external hints at inference. FailForge recovers over 26% of previously failed instances at marginal additional cost, and training Qwen3.5-4B on the augmented corpus improves the SWE-bench Verified resolve rate by 6.6 points over a strong RFT baseline, with gains concentrated on the hardest problems.

Gamification is especially effective in learning domains requiring active problem-solving and iterative skill-building, such as cybersecurity education. Generative AI agents offer a path to delivering such experiences adaptively at scale, but introduce well-documented risks in educational settings: inconsistent behavior, hallucinated reasoning, and misalignment with pedagogical frameworks. Grounding these systems in learning science is therefore essential. We present \model, an agentic framework for gamified cybersecurity learning that enables structured autonomy through ontology-guided validation, schema-governed behavioral control, and competency-based progression. The system is organized around a competency-based progression model that structures topics by difficulty and prerequisite relationships, reflecting evidence-based principles of scaffolded instruction. The learning loop is decomposed into four specialized agents: challenge, support, evaluation, and reward, each governed by behavioral schemas that encode operational modes and progression logic, bounding agent autonomy without eliminating generative flexibility. A cybersecurity ontology validates all generated content prior to display, enforcing domain-consistent reasoning and safety constraints. We evaluate CyberAgents through classroom deployment with undergraduate students, complemented by expert evaluations from educators and domain specialists. Results indicate improved engagement, clearer feedback interpretation, and greater learner trust in AI-generated responses when behavioral schemas and ontology validation are active. Preliminary comparisons with an unconstrained configuration further support the role of structured control in stabilizing instructional behavior. These findings offer a blueprint for designing pedagogically grounded agentic gamified learning systems.

Artificial intelligence is changing the task composition of computing work faster than curricula and training typically adapt. This is a curriculum-framework paper, grounded in a structured narrative review of labor-market and software-engineering evidence and illustrated through an exploratory pilot course: the review supports the framework, and the pilot illustrates it rather than serving as primary evidence. The central claim is that near-term change is task reallocation rather than full replacement: routine implementation is increasingly automated while verification, systems thinking, security, and the ability to supervise and orchestrate AI (keeping a human in the loop) gain value. We organize the response as a capability-assurance framework anchored by a Capability Ladder: a five-level progression (trigger, automation, workflow, AI agent, agent team) that classifies the operational autonomy of AI-augmented work and the human supervision it requires. We map the ladder to course-level updates, workload-aware assessment, and stackable workforce credentials, and illustrate it through a two-semester pilot of a team-based, no-code course enrolling computing and business students. We argue for targeted modernization around durable capabilities rather than wholesale curriculum replacement, and we are explicit about evidence limits: labor signals are confounded by non-AI forces, industry reports are directional, and the pilot is exploratory.

In medical education, physicians convert academic knowledge into clinical expertise through residency: years of training across thousands of encounters, with diverse sources of feedback and progressively greater autonomy. Much of clinical reasoning relies on the patient encounter, a dialogue in which a clinician elicits history, refines diagnostic hypotheses, and decides management under uncertainty. While large language models (LLMs) excel on static medical benchmarks, methods to optimize the full sequence of clinical decisions remain underdeveloped. We present ResidencyRL, a reinforcement learning (RL) method for training clinical artificial intelligence (AI) agents through simulated multi-turn clinical encounters (up to 60 dialogue turns and 8 tool calls per trajectory). ResidencyRL pairs the policy agent with LLM simulators capable of complex, adversarial behaviors, training against a structured reward aligned to diagnostic accuracy, management quality, communication, documentation, and safety. On held-out evaluations, the ResidencyRL agent improves diagnostic accuracy by 7.0% under adversarial conditions (88.0% vs. 81.0%) and reduces missed red flag rates by 31%, demonstrating rigorous mitigation of premature closure. Blinded expert clinicians validated these gains, preferring the trained agent in 87.6% of side-by-side comparisons. The procedural competencies transfer to unseen benchmarks: the agent outperforms the base model across all six clinical axes of the AMIE multi-visit benchmark, and shows consistent directional improvements on AgentClinic and CRAFT-MD. Our findings demonstrate that sequential clinical decision-making can be effectively learned through multi-turn RL in simulation, yielding robust, generalizable capabilities, paving the way towards clinical mastery. Prospective validation with real-world workflows remains necessary to establish clinical utility.

Teaching a language model a skill it has not mastered is obstructed by three recurring difficulties: training data is scarce, ground-truth reasoning traces are usually unavailable, and models often exhibit an apparent ceiling beyond which additional data yields no further improvement. We study these difficulties in a controlled setting, fine-tuning Qwen2.5-Math-7B on competition mathematics (AIME), a task on which it initially solves only 5.6% of problems (pass@1). To address data scarcity, we introduce Question-begets-Question (QbQ), a scalable procedure in which a teacher transforms existing problems into diverse variants that probe the same underlying skills; to model the absence of oracle reasoning, we train exclusively via reinforcement learning on problem statements and final answers, never on teacher reasoning traces. Static training on such data, however, plateaus well short of the task: real-plus-synthetic augmentation and non-curriculum QbQ generated synthetic data training cap pass@1 at 12.5% and 14.5% respectively, despite large increases in data. Our central finding is that this ceiling is not intrinsic to the model. We propose a self-evolving curriculum that, each round, evaluates the current checkpoint, seeds QbQ from the problems it can mostly get right, and trains on the resulting variants; under an identical data budget, this breaks the ceiling and lifts pass@1 to 16.5% with no sign of saturation after 20 rounds. Counterintuitively, we find that models improve when trained on variants of problems they can mostly get right, and that models trained this way go on to solve harder problems never seen during training.

Evaluating the quality and relevance of textual outputs from Large Language Models (LLMs) remains challenging and resource-intensive. Existing automated metrics often fail to capture the complexity and variability inherent in LLM-generated outputs. Moreover, these metrics typically rely on explicit reference standards, limiting their use mostly to domains with objective benchmarks. This work introduces a novel evaluation framework designed to approximate expert-level assessments of LLM-generated content. The proposed method employs pairwise comparisons of outputs by multiple LLMs, reducing biases from individual models. An Elo rating system is used to generate stable and interpretable rankings. Adjustable agreement thresholds, from full unanimity to majority voting, allow flexible control over evaluation confidence and coverage. The method's effectiveness is demonstrated through evaluating competency profiles extracted from scientific abstracts. Preliminary results show that automatically derived rankings correlate well with expert judgments, significantly reducing the need for extensive human intervention. By offering a scalable, consistent, and domain-agnostic evaluation layer, the framework supports more efficient and reliable quality assessments of LLM outputs across diverse applications.

Large language model (LLM) evaluation spans diverse tasks and benchmarks, yet evidence remains organized around tasks rather than the capabilities they probe. This fragmentation limits cross-study comparison, obscures capabilities tasks recruit, and makes coverage gaps difficult to identify. We introduce a multi-layer taxonomy of 14 capability domains and 91 subskills across Primitive, Constructed, and Integrative layers. Human cognitive science guides capability definition and organization, not LLM architecture. Layer assignments draw on developmental precedence and hypothesized functional support, while human-origin constructs are adapted to observable model behavior. To demonstrate operational utility, we screened 31,505 papers from ACL, AAAI, ICML, and NeurIPS between 2023 and 2025 and mapped 15,934 LLM-focused papers through multi-model annotation, consensus, and arbitration. Direct research attention concentrated on Language-Semantic Competence (3,551; 22.3%), Reasoning (3,388; 21.3%), Planning and Decision-Making (2,149; 13.5%), and Perception (1,954; 12.3%), whereas six domains appeared in fewer than 2% of papers. Within domains, the most frequent subskill had a median prevalence of 97.9% and appeared in at least 90% of papers in 10 of 14 domains. Language-Semantic Competence and Reasoning formed the highest-volume pair (n = 1,864; 11.7%; lift = 2.47), whereas Theory of Mind and Social Reasoning and Interaction showed the highest lift among pairs with at least 20 co-occurrences (n = 62; lift = 30.84). By shifting the unit of analysis from isolated tasks to structured capabilities, the taxonomy supports research organization, coverage audits, evaluation interpretation, and testable hypotheses for diagnosis, training, and transfer.

Humans have always externalized thought onto tools, from the tally and the abacus to the map and, now, large language models. I model the agent, the tool, and the task as one dynamical system in which competence (what the user retains) and reliance (what the user outsources) co-evolve, and find that the outcome is bistable. Above a critical tool availability the competent state is destroyed and competence collapses toward a low dependent floor as the user outsources completely. Lowering availability does not reverse the collapse until a far lower threshold, so history of practice rather than the current tool fixes the state. Two users with the same present access can therefore occupy opposite and lasting states, one competent and one dependent, decided only by which they built first. The collapse threshold depends jointly on the competence a user brings to a task and on the tool's transparency, the fraction of its working a user can reconstruct. In the case where an agent faces an uncertain goal, a tool can cause agency itself to transfer to the tool and the human-agent becomes an agentic-instrument, irreversibly, because the tool's model is too large to internalize. The model is tested against several independent data sets, including GPS and map use, arithmetic expertise, and language models. These results reframe how tools should be built, how artificial intelligence is deployed, and what a tool-resistant education might require.

Current AI evaluation frameworks focus primarily on technical performance, including accuracy, robustness, reasoning ability, and policy compliance. These measures remain essential, but they are not sufficient for systems that interact directly with users through natural language. Human-facing AI systems are increasingly used as advisors, coaches, tutors, and companions. In these roles, their responses can shape how users reason, interpret emotions, form beliefs, calibrate trust, and make decisions. The relevant unit of evaluation is therefore not only the model, but the human-AI interaction. This paper introduces psychological competence as a missing dimension in AI evaluation. We define psychological competence as the capacity of a human-facing AI system to support user cognition, emotional interpretation, and behavioral decision-making in ways that are appropriate to the user, context, and purpose of the interaction. This includes interaction properties such as framing, tone, perceived authority, responsiveness, uncertainty handling, and conversational guidance. Existing evaluation approaches capture parts of this problem but rarely assess these psychological effects directly. Drawing on behavioral science and human-AI interaction research, we outline a conceptual framework for psychological competence and its core domains. Rather than proposing a specific benchmark, we define the construct, clarify its boundaries, and describe how it may be assessed through scenario-based probes, structured human evaluation, and model-assisted evaluation methods. We argue that psychological competence should become a core consideration for model providers, deploying organizations, researchers, and regulators concerned with the real-world effects of human-facing AI systems.

Large language models increasingly serve as teachers generating training data for smaller students. Prior multi-teacher knowledge distillation methods merge outputs without determining which frontier model teaches best, often relying on an LLM judge biased toward its own outputs. We introduce a compete-then-collaborate framework where four frontier AI teachers (Claude, Codex-GPT, Grok, Gemini) are ranked head-to-head by an execution-based judge (unit tests and stdin-stdout checks) with fairness controls, and then collaborate to build a verifiable curriculum for a student (Qwen2.5-Coder). We report three findings. (1) Under execution verification, all teachers solve standard problems near-perfectly after self-correction (99-100%) due to a saturation effect, but harder competition problems separate them (Gemini 77% > Claude 69% = Codex 69% > Grok 50%); however, the robust student-side results do not depend on teacher ranking. (2) Imitation (SFT) on verified solutions does not improve, and can degrade, an already-competent student at 7B and 32B (e.g., from 76.7% to 72.7% on MBPP-test, and 5.9% to 2.9% on competition problems). (3) Using the same collaborative curriculum as a reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) environment improves the student (from 5.9% to 8.8% peak on competition problems, a +49% relative gain), reversing SFT's direction. The value of AI-teacher collaboration lies not in pooling answers to imitate, but in jointly constructing a verifiable environment where the student learns by doing. We release a reproducible on-prem pipeline (NVIDIA GB10) with framework patches for running GRPO on a bleeding-edge stack.

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly capable, the next question is how can we enable models to continually learn? Today, the field largely frames this as a problem of context management and mitigating forgetting. We argue this framing is incomplete: continual learning is fundamentally about increasing model competence as the world changes. We disentangle this change along two axes -- space, where the model encounters new domains, and time, where the underlying data drifts under a fixed task. This framing lets us study continual learning under realistic conditions: new domains arrive over time, facts drift past their training cutoff, and agentic interactions accumulate state across episodes. To evaluate methods under this setting, we recast widely used LLM benchmarks as sequential problems and introduce a single mechanism-agnostic protocol that compares prompt-based methods (GEPA, ACE), supervised learning (SFT, SDFT), reinforcement learning (GRPO, SDPO), and context compression (Cartridges, In-place TTT). Prompt-based methods fit each new stage quickly but degrade on future tasks. Distillation-based methods accumulate knowledge stably but struggle to update outdated facts. Context compression improves efficiency without substantially improving the ability to learn new tasks. Online reinforcement learning adapts most effectively to knowledge updates but remains sensitive to noisy reward signals. Overall, our results suggest that continual learning is not a single capability: different patterns of environmental change require fundamentally different update behaviors, determining when adaptation must be learned inside model weights and when it can be achieved through external scaffolding. We hope that understanding where each method succeeds and fails will guide the design of stronger continual learning systems.

Improvements in the technical performance of human--robot interaction (HRI) systems do not automatically translate into differences that human users can detect during live interaction. This paper investigates whether a 15 percentage point gain in end-to-end task success (from 75% in a multimodal baseline system to 90% in an improved configuration identified through a prior ablation study) is sufficient to produce consistent and measurable differences in user perception. The baseline system combines Whisper for speech recognition, Florence-2 for open-vocabulary object detection, LLaMA 3.1 for action extraction, and an interval Type-2 fuzzy logic controller for motion execution. The improved configuration replaces the perception and language modules with Grounding DINO + SAM and Qwen 3.5 9B, respectively, while retaining the same controller. A within-subject user study with 24 participants compared both systems on the same tabletop object-grasping task. After interacting with each configuration, participants rated perceived speed, reliability, and overall competence and fluency on a 7-point Likert scale. Results show that 17 out of 24 participants (70.83%) preferred the improved system (exact binomial test, p = 0.043, h = 0.43), and all three perceptual constructs were rated significantly higher for the improved configuration after Holm correction, with large to very large effect sizes (p < 0.001). These findings confirm that the identified technical improvements are perceptible to users in direct interaction and underscore the importance of complementing benchmark evaluation with user-centred evidence when assessing robotic manipulation pipelines.

A synthetic measurement of model competence is useful only if it survives the move to real data, yet the real labels that would verify it are exactly what medical imaging lacks. We ask whether transfer can be predicted in advance, label-free, and answer with a mechanism: on synthetic digital twins, competence that is donor-driven (a property of the transplanted nodule) survives the synthetic to real change of host, while host-driven competence (a property of the surrounding anatomy) need not. We test this on three lung CT vision-language tasks chosen to span that axis, across five public VLMs, four guidance conditions, and seven real datasets. The prediction holds in every case: presence and size orderings transfer (R2 >= 0.96), lobe does not; the split survives leave-source-out calibration, and the diagnostic names that boundary before any real label. TrialCouncil, a training-free council calibrated only on synthetic CT, confirms it by matching the best fixed model exactly where transfer is predicted. The contribution is not the router but the finding that transfer itself is predictable, label-free, from synthetic data alone.

Behavior-cloned policies often learn multiple behavior modes from demonstration datasets, including modes that are unsafe or otherwise undesired at deployment. For example, a policy trained on diverse handover demonstrations may learn to pass a knife blade-first. Standard remedies such as data curation and inference-time steering either require access to the original demonstrations for full retraining or add substantial inference-time overhead. To address this gap, we propose MoRE(Mode Redirection), which redirects policy rollouts toward desired behavior modes through a short "uncloning" step. Specifically, MoRE distills the redirection signal from a temporary mode classifier into the policy weights to steer behavior. A retain loss balances this edit by preserving desired-mode competence, allowing the standalone policy to suppress unwanted modes with zero inference-time overhead. Across eight simulated and real-world tasks, MoRE improves the average deployment success rate (SR) by 44 percentage points over the original mixed-mode policy. Among all compared adaptation and steering baselines, MoRE achieves the strongest SR and approaches the filtered-data retraining reference, while preserving task competence and inference speed. MoRE also generalizes across robot policy backbones, including Diffusion Policy and the Pi0.5 VLA, diverse task categories, and real-world deployments.

Competency Questions (CQs) are the central component of CQ-verification, an established process in which an ontology is evaluated against a set of natural language questions to determine whether the intended purpose of the ontology has been properly modelled. However, CQ-verification is often time-consuming and error-prone, as it requires careful interpretation of linguistic nuances and precise alignment with formal ontology constructs. Ambiguities and complexity in CQs can further complicate this process, leading to inconsistent modelling decisions and verification outcomes. In this paper, we investigate what makes a CQ challenging and possible solutions to enhance the users' performance in the CQ-verification process. We experimented with the data of 19 participants who performed CQ-verification on 20 tasks using an LLM assistant to support ontology evaluation. The results show the necessity of a tool to refine CQs before publishing them to avoid ambiguity or excessive complexity in later phases of the ontology engineering process.

Large language models (LLMs) in medicine are mainly evaluated using multiple-choice question answering (MCQA), which can overestimate real clinical ability due to guessing strategies and answer biases. To address these limitations, we introduce an expanded and more challenging benchmark based on Polish medical exams, adding over 15,000 questions, two new domains, and four structural modifications that reduce MCQA-specific artifacts and better test reasoning. We evaluate 21 LLMs and show that evaluation design strongly affects results. Under our harder setup, the best model (Qwen3.5-122B) drops by 28.4 and 31 pp on English and Polish exams, respectively. Despite low evidence of data contamination, standard MCQA scores do not reliably reflect true medical competence. To facilitate further research, we make our benchmark publicly available.

As language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents, they must coordinate with others over long horizons in open-ended interactive tasks. Yet existing evaluations rarely test these demands together, instead emphasising single-agent tasks, short interactions, or highly structured multi-agent settings. We introduce $alem$, a JAX-based benchmark for open-ended multi-agent coordination built on Craftax-like dynamics. Alem embeds procedurally generated coordination tasks, soft specialisation, communication, and controllable coordination difficulty into a long-horizon survival world with exploration, crafting, trading, and combat. We evaluate $13$ modern LLMs zero-shot within homogeneous teams, with trained MARL agents as reference points. Current LLM agents remain far from solving alem, averaging only ~6% normalised return, but their failures are not uniform. On the hardest coordination setting, zero-shot Gemini-3.1-Pro-High approaches MARL agents trained for one billion steps, while GPT-5.4-High achieves strong base-task reward but much lower coordination reward. This contrast shows that individual task competence does not imply coordination competence. Ablations show that communication is the largest contributor to coordination, while memory and reasoning help when used to maintain multi-step plans. Overall, our results identify coordination as a distinct bottleneck for frontier LLM agents, separate from single-agent capabilities. Alem makes this bottleneck measurable and provides a controlled testbed for developing agents that communicate, allocate roles, and execute shared plans. Code is available at https://github.com/alem-world/alem-env.

Generative AI makes answers easy and understanding hard, and uncritical use invites cognitive offloading. Schools still measure unaided performance, yet the real task is to produce good work with AI: framing an ill-defined task, judging the output, and steering the model toward a better result. This ability is rarely assessed in its own right; where measured, it collapses into one "prompting" score that cannot diagnose why AI use succeeds or fails. We propose CoRe-3 (Co-Reasoning), a competency model factoring productive AI use into three assessable skills we abbreviate FJS: Framing (specifying an ill-defined task before invoking AI), Judging (evaluating output for errors and unstated assumptions), and Steering (iteratively redirecting the model). Its distinguishing claim is the separation of pre-generation Framing from post-generation Steering, with Judging as the gate between. We ground the skills in theory, state five testable propositions, and instantiate them in CoReasoningLab, an open platform that presents flawed AI output and scores them independently. Over simulated learners (generated and graded by different models), the skills dissociate: each tracks its own manipulated competence while staying flat in the others, and grades become correlated when one competence is shared across all three (convergent and discriminant validity), across grader backends from two providers. Human-rater agreement and outcomes are next; we release the instrument, data, and protocol.

Schema-constrained information extraction from diverse educational and labor-market corpora remains an open challenge in natural language processing because existing pipelines rely primarily on lexical-surface methods that cannot recover implicit competencies, lack grounding in shared taxonomies, and provide no formal measures of extraction reliability or document-level completeness. To address these limitations, this paper proposes a four-stage NLP framework that combines (i) schema-constrained prompting of a two-model frontier-LLM ensemble against a JSON Schema-enforced seven-slot competency formalism, (ii) Sentence-BERT (SBERT) alignment of the extracted records against an eleven-domain ESCO v1.2.1 controlled vocabulary, (iii) a two-tier adjudication protocol that resolves inter-model disagreements, and (iv) a verification mechanism that combines per-slot Cohen's kappa, schema conformance, and document-level completeness audits. The framework is instantiated for a critical application in higher-education quality assurance, namely curriculum-labor market alignment for the ABET-accredited BSc Computer Science program at the United Arab Emirates University. The pipeline extracts 400 competency records from the 85-course 2025-2026 study plan and aligns them, under a five-scope analysis ranging from the computing core to a probability-weighted student trajectory, with 30 job postings (483 requirement clauses) at an SBERT cosine threshold of 0.50. The extractor achieves Cohen's kappa of 0.79 on the skill slot, with 100% schema conformance and 100% document-level completeness. The alignment surfaces interpretable supply-demand gaps of 25.0% in general and transversal skills, 13.8% in algorithms and computational theory, and 12.2% in software engineering and project management, with a near-zero 1.8% gap in artificial intelligence and data science despite 38.6% supply coverage.

Large reasoning models (LRMs) often generate extensive chain-of-thought (CoT) traces before producing a final answer. As explicit textual artifacts, these traces can be passed to other models to solve the same task, enabling cross-model reasoning transfer. Yet successful transfer alone does not reveal how the provided CoT contributes to another model's answer. We study this question with a controlled provider--receiver framework, where a provider generates a reasoning trace and a receiver solves the same problem from increasingly longer trace prefixes. We compare force-answer, where the receiver answers directly from the prefix, with free-generation, where it may continue reasoning before answering. Across models and benchmarks, full traces often transfer successfully, but prefix trajectories reveal distinct mechanisms. In force-answer mode, AIME transfer is largely driven by explicit answer availability. MMLU-Pro instead reflects a larger role for receiver competence, while ZebraLogic depends on partial structured-answer information rather than complete-answer leakage alone. In free-generation mode, partial CoTs improve performance across benchmarks, indicating that prefixes can guide continued reasoning. Finally, answer agreement among receivers provides a gold-free signal for stopping provider reasoning early. Overall, cross-model CoT transfer is not a single phenomenon: it can reflect answer extraction, reasoning scaffolding, or receiver-dependent competence.

Discourse particles, such as well and kind of, are crucial components that enable LLMs to "speak" more like humans. They are used to convey emotions, intentions, and interpersonal attitudes. However, existing studies have not yet built a comprehensive understanding of LLMs' capabilities in handling discourse particles. Moreover, the limited number of research focuses primarily on high-resource languages such as English, with little attention paid to Southeast Asian languages. In this paper, we (1) propose MalayPrag, a benchmark designed to systematically evaluate and analyze LLMs' capabilities in handling discourse particles in colloquial Malay; (2) introduce five attributes that provide a theoretically grounded, unified framework for interpreting pragmatic functions of discourse particles. Applying these two, we prompt ten off-the-shelf LLMs to perform three prediction tasks. The experimental results reveal substantial challenges for current LLMs to accurately connect discourse particles and their pragmatic functions in Malay. The provision of the five attributes designed in this study is found to significantly improve the connections, highlighting the need for structured scaffolding for models' pragmatic competence.

Linking learning resources to a structured competency framework is key to enabling competency-based search and curriculum analytics in Learning Management Systems (LMS). However, manual tagging is labor-intensive, and fully automatic methods often lack transparency. In this paper, we present an end-to-end alignment pipeline that uses a large language model (LLM) as a constrained, evidence-producing tagger. LMS resources -both instructional content and assessments -are first segmented into meaningful pedagogical fragments. For each fragment, a small set of candidate competencies is retrieved from structured competency profiles enriched with graph-based context. The LLM then selects the most relevant competencies from this set and provides supporting evidence spans from the fragment text. These predictions are refined using the structure of the competency graph and aggregated at the resource level. We evaluate our approach on a dataset built from the Computer Science department's competency referential at the Université de Technologie de Compiègne (UTC), covering 22 competencies across multiple course materials. Our LLM+BM25+Graph (LBG) pipeline achieves strong results, with a micro-F1 of 0.57 and macro-F1 of 0.50 at the fragment level, 0.51 macro-F1 at the resource level, and an MRR of 0.82outperforming zero-shot and few-shot LLM variants, retrieval/similarity baselines, and supervised classifiers -while also producing more mechanically traceable evidence spans to support human auditing and educational analysis.

Evidence absence is not evidence insufficiency, but fact verification benchmarks can make them observationally similar. The Not Enough Information (NEI) label is often operationalized through constructed evidence conditions, and that choice silently determines what a verifier learns. We introduce NEI-CAP, a construction-aware diagnostic protocol for insufficient-evidence evaluation. Each NEI example carries the construction family that produced it; NEI-CAP audits shortcut cues, validates hard cases through human adjudication, and tests whether competence transfers across constructions. We instantiate the protocol on SciFact, with FEVER and HoVer as bounded external controls. Across these settings, NEI competence does not transfer reliably: encoder verifiers and an instruction-tuned decoder trained on shortcut-prone constructions fail to recognize semantically related insufficient evidence, and mixed-construction training narrows but does not close the gap. Fixed-claim diagnostics further show that the evidence condition shifts confidence in the reference Support/Refute label, not only NEI recall, so an aggregate NEI score can hide which problem a model has actually solved. We therefore recommend reporting the construction family alongside the score, and distill the results into a checklist for benchmarks that carry an insufficient-evidence label.

Direct Preference Optimisation (DPO) is widely used for safety alignment in large language models. However, prior work shows it is brittle and exhibits poor out-of-distribution (OOD) generalisation. In this paper, we investigate whether Curriculum Learning can improve the robustness of DPO-based safety alignment. We propose Staged-Competence, a curriculum-based framework that organises preference data by difficulty, employs competence-based sampling, and progressively updates the reference model during training. Averaged across three model families, Staged-Competence reduces OOD harmful response rates by 16% and jailbreak attack success rates by 20%, while preserving general capabilities with near-zero over-refusal. We further show that Staged-Competence (1) matches baseline safety with only 75% of the training data and (2) yields better separation between safe and unsafe responses. Staged-Competence is agnostic to the policy optimisation loss and can extend to other DPO variants and alignment domains. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/Sandeep5500/curriculum-learning-for-safety.

Teacher education requires deliberate practice with learners who exhibit identifiable strengths, weaknesses, and partial mastery. Large language models could support such practice by simulating students with known skill components, enabling teachers to rehearse explanations, diagnoses, and instructional responses. For this purpose, however, the central requirement is neither to maximize benchmark accuracy nor to suppress isolated facts, but to control model behavior so that it reflects a specified skill profile. This paper investigates whether prompted language models can be steered to retain some skills while suppressing others. We introduce a benchmark-oriented framework in which an explicit skill vector represents a simulated student, prompt-based control specifies retained and missing competencies, and behavior is evaluated using profile-alignment metrics, retained-versus-forgotten comparisons, and cross-skill calibration analyses. The results show that selective partial mastery can be induced and measured in a structured mathematics setting, although the degree of controllability remains model-dependent. These findings position controllable learner simulation as a distinct research problem at the intersection of teacher education, educational simulation, and language-model control.

We work towards measuring both AI adoption and the capability of AI to perform discrete labor tasks across various occupations. To measure adoption, we develop an open-source economic index that uses publicly available user-LLM chat data and ONET tasks to replicate studies produced by frontier AI labs, finding that occupations in the finance, computer science, and arts sectors are those with the highest adoption rates. To measure capabilities, we build a system that generates benchmark scenarios grounded in ONET occupations, tasks, and model-context-protocol (MCP) servers. We test Kimi-k2.5 with an OpenAI agents SDK harness on scenarios across 9 occupations that appear frequently in our index, finding that AI correctly executes high-level workflows but often errs in the granular details (such as specific tool calls used).

Agent harness evolution improves frozen language-model agents by modifying the executable structures around them. We study this paradigm as a form of sample-efficient fast adaptation: instead of updating model weights, an agent can acquire task-specific competence by changing its external harness, while leaving the base model's general capabilities intact. Prior work shows that self-generated rollouts can support harness search, suggesting that agents may acquire new task competence through practice. Yet in long-horizon stochastic environments, self-practice becomes fragile: rewards are sparse, outcomes are high-variance, and failures are hard to attribute to concrete harness mechanisms. We introduce DemoEvolve, a demonstration-bootstrapped approach to harness evolution. When reward-only search is too broad and noisy, competent human trajectories serve as expert reference experience for the coding proposer, guiding harness-level diagnosis and editing. Experiments on Liar's Dice show that self-rollout evolution can work when episodes are short and failures are attributable. In contrast, Balatro exposes a harder long-horizon stochastic regime, where self-rollout evolution is misled by sparse feedback and candidate-selection noise, while tutorial-like textual knowledge alone does not yield stable improvement. Under the same limited budget, DemoEvolve produces more effective and auditable harness edits and achieves better performance. Overall, demonstrations make sparse-feedback harness evolution more diagnosable, localizable, and stable.

Large Language Model (LLM) interactions are typically underspecified, with users clarifying all necessary details across multiple conversational turns. Yet recent work shows that LLMs perform far worse in this multi-turn setting than in a single turn with same information being available at once, a phenomenon termed "Lost-in-Conversation." However, bridging this gap effectively remains an open problem. Here we introduce Found in Conversation (FiC), a training framework where a model teaches itself to find and recover its single-turn competence given underspecified multi-turn prompts. We develop View-Asymmetric Self-Distillation, which distills across two views of the same task information--single-turn view for the teacher, multi-turn view for the student--transferring strong single-turn behavior into weak multi-turn behavior. This requires no stronger external teacher, which is unavailable as even frontier LLMs exhibit this gap. Across model families (Llama, Qwen, Phi, and OLMo) and sizes (3B-14B), FiC recovers at least 92% of single-turn performance and reaches 100% on two Llama backbones, yielding more efficient and helpful multi-turn conversations with single-turn capabilities intact.

Organizations increasingly deploy separate purpose-built AI tools across professional domains, often hiring domain specialists for each, recreating the staffing models AI was expected to transform. Yet the meta-skills that make these tools effective, prompt engineering (interaction-level optimization) and context engineering (structured input pipeline design), are domain-portable: a practitioner who masters them can apply them to any purpose-built AI tool in any domain. This paper defines Augment Engineering as the discipline of orchestrating multiple purpose-built AI tools across distinct professional domains, applying prompt and context engineering as portable competencies that transfer across tool boundaries. We present a six-phase orchestration methodology and four portability metrics. A 5-month formative case study (November 2025 to March 2026) documents a single practitioner applying these skills across a ten-component orchestration stack spanning seven professional domains, producing work products that would traditionally involve separate domain specialists. Two quantitative observations are consistent with the framework's predictions: a Cochran-Armitage trend test (n = 200 interactions across two chat LLMs, p < 0.01) shows first-pass acceptance rising with prompt-sophistication level, and a Wright's Law fit (n = 82 artifacts, p < 0.01) shows production acceleration across the artifact portfolio. Because all observations come from a single practitioner, the inferential statistics are exploratory and hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory; portability across the full portfolio awaits multi-practitioner replication. Augment Engineering completes a three-discipline progression: Prompt Engineering (one tool), Context Engineering (reproducible pipelines), Augment Engineering (a portfolio of tools across domains).

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is transforming how firms create, process, and apply knowledge, yet little is known about the heterogeneity of its productivity effects across users. We report results from a randomized controlled experiment in which participants-analogs of early-career knowledge workers-were assigned to self-study a technical domain using either traditional resources or large-language-model (LLM) assistance. On average, GenAI access significantly increased task performance, but the distribution of gains was highly uneven. Improvements were not predicted by GPA or prior knowledge, but by \textit{AI Interaction Competence (AIC)} -- the ability to elicit, filter, and verify model outputs. High-AIC participants realized outsized gains; low-AIC participants saw limited or even negative marginal returns. A scaffolding intervention (conceptual maps) reduced outcome variance, indicating that standardized workflows can mitigate inequality in AI-mediated performance. We interpret these findings through the lens of human-AI complementarities: GenAI raises mean productivity while introducing a new axis of capability inequality. Managerially, firms should pair GenAI access with short AIC micro-training and simple standard operating procedures to capture value consistently and avoid uneven adoption outcomes.

Robotic systems often use predictive uncertainty to decide whether to act autonomously or defer to a fallback policy. In threshold-gated autonomy, uncertainty matters mainly through its ability to rank likely errors. Standard metrics such as expected calibration error and AUROC do not directly test whether uncertainty changes act/defer decisions. We therefore evaluate uncertainty using Spearman rank correlation, paired bootstrap equivalence testing, and act/defer agreement. Across three temporal activity-recognition benchmarks, we find a dataset-dependent competence regime below which uncertainty provides a weak and unstable error ranking. Above this regime, softmax heuristics, MC Dropout, and ensembles produce similar gating behavior, while threshold choice has a much larger effect on execution outcomes. A multi-seed embodied simulation shows the same pattern for collision rate and cost once realized autonomy is matched. Under temporal covariate shift, ranking quality remains stable, but fine grained semantic OOD detection remains near chance. These results suggest that simple uncertainty proxies can suffice for selective gating once the base model is competent, but not for semantic novelty detection.

Assessing learner competency in clinical simulation requires expert observation that is time-intensive, difficult to scale, and subject to inter-rater variability. Vision-language models have emerged as a promising tool for understanding complex visual behavior. In this work, we investigate whether visual observations can provide educationally meaningful signals for competency assessment through a three-stage framework that (1) extracts action timelines from egocentric nursing simulation video using frozen visual encoders and few-shot learning, (2) derives sequence-level features and per-session recognition metrics, and (3) relates these to instructor-rated competency. Across 22 densely annotated sessions (3.8 hours, 493 actions), a frozen DINOv2 backbone with HMM Viterbi decoding achieves 57.4% MOF in leave-one-out 1-shot recognition. Surprisingly, we observe a negative trend between recognition accuracy and competency (rho = -0.524, p = 0.012 for mIoU), robust to six confound controls: more competent students produce diverse, harder-to-classify workflows, while simple sequence features show no such relationship. Per-item analysis identifies patient safety protocols and team communication as the expected behaviors most reflected in this pattern, and process model comparisons reveal that higher-competency students exhibit more protocol-consistent action transitions. These findings suggest that recognition accuracy may complement predicted action timelines as a pedagogically informative signal in automated competency assessment.

Large language model personalization typically adapts outputs to user preferences and style but does not account for differences in user evaluation capacity across domains of expertise. This limitation can encourage Professional Domain Drift, where users rely on AI generated reasoning in domains they cannot reliably evaluate. We introduce Capability Conditioned Scaffolding, a typed framework that partitions expertise into strong, mixed, and weak domains and conditions intervention behavior on structured capability profiles. A pilot evaluation across multiple MMLU subsets and four LLM substrates shows consistent profile conditioned intervention behavior, including categorical inversion under profile swapping and selective activation in mixed domain risk zones. These findings suggest that capability aware scaffolding can support more reliable professional human AI collaboration beyond stylistic personalization.

As generative AI and low-code workflow platforms become routine in software practice, a key educational question is whether the next generation of computer engineers will accept these tools as useful, usable, and worthy of sustained engagement. This paper reports a mixed-methods, cross-sectional study of undergraduate computer engineering students' acceptance of AI automation tooling, instantiated through the open-source platform n8n across three identically scripted workshops in Thailand (n = 103). A 12-item, five-point Likert instrument mapped to six TAM/UTAUT constructs - Performance Expectancy (PE), Effort Expectancy (EE), Behavioral Intention (BI), Self-Efficacy (SE), Hedonic Motivation (HM), and Output Quality (OQ) - was complemented by inductive thematic analysis of open-ended feedback. Analyses combined ordinal reliability estimation, bootstrap confidence intervals, non-parametric tests, multiple-comparison-controlled correlations, polychoric dimensionality diagnostics, a common-method-bias check, and between-session comparisons. Acceptance was favorable across all six constructs with large effect sizes, with PE emerging as the strongest construct and HM as the weakest. Dimensionality diagnostics further revealed that canonical TAM/UTAUT sub-facets collapsed into a single general acceptance factor in this short-form post-workshop context, a finding with important methodological and theoretical implications. Qualitative themes converged with the quantitative profile regarding usefulness and enthusiasm but diverged on output quality, revealing a small yet articulate reliability-skeptical minority. The findings support the curricular adoption of AI automation tooling in undergraduate computing education and identify three theory-grounded instructional levers: instruction-sequencing scaffolds, self-efficacy supports, and trust-calibration interventions.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in settings where reliable self-assessment is critical. Assessing model reliability has evolved from using probabilistic correctness estimates to, more recently, eliciting verbalized confidence. Confidence, however, has been shown to be an inconsistent and overoptimistic predictor of model correctness. Drawing on cognitive appraisal theory, a framework from human psychology that decomposes self-evaluation into multiple components, we propose a multidimensional perspective on model self-assessment. We elicit six appraisal-based dimensions of self-assessment, alongside confidence, and evaluate their utility for predicting model failure across 12 LLMs and 38 tasks spanning eight domains. We find that competence-related appraisal dimensions, particularly effort and ability, consistently match or outperform confidence across most settings. Effort additionally yields less overoptimistic estimates that remain stable across model sizes. In contrast, affective dimensions provide marginally predictive signals. Furthermore, the most informative dimension varies systematically with task characteristics: effort is most predictive for reasoning-intensive tasks, while ability and confidence dominate on retrieval-oriented tasks. Broadly, our findings indicate that structured multidimensional self-assessment is a promising approach to improving the reliability and safety of language model deployment across diverse real-world settings.

The rapid global expansion of artificial intelligence regulation has generated, across multiple jurisdictions, a demand for legal expertise dedicated to AI that the market has addressed in a fragmented manner. Data protection officers extend their remit beyond data protection law; privacy lawyers reposition themselves toward AI; compliance officers add AI chapters to their existing manuals. This paper argues that none of these adaptive responses adequately covers the professional space opened by the emerging global AI regulatory landscape, of which the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) is the most comprehensive instance, alongside the Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI, the United States executive and sectoral framework, and analogous initiatives in the United Kingdom, Canada, Brazil, China, Japan, Singapore, and beyond. A distinct professional profile is required: the AI Legal Specialist, conceived as a jurist -- understood broadly to encompass any professional with advanced legal training -- operating at the intersection of legal interpretation and AI governance. The profile is juridically autonomous: it derives its existence from the structure of regulatory obligations generated wherever AI is subject to substantive regulation, rather than from any technical standard or the extension of adjacent roles. The paper provides a juridically grounded definition of the profile, argues for its autonomy from adjacent figures and international standards, proposes a reference competence architecture aligned with the European e-Competence Framework (e-CF, EN 16234-1) as a methodological choice, and articulates the conditions for its operational measurement through key performance indicators. The contribution is intended as a foundation for international standardization of the profile and as a reference for practice, curricula, and adoption across jurisdictions.

Authoritative competency frameworks such as ESCO, ROME, and O*NET are essential for aligning education with labor market needs, yet their technical complexity and structural heterogeneity hinder practical adoption by educators. This paper introduces SkillGraph-Service, an interoperable microservice designed to bridge this gap by unifying these resources into a provenance-preserving Knowledge Graph (KG). Adopting a KG-first, LLM-fallback architecture, the system combines symbolic rigor with sub-symbolic flexibility. It implements a lightweight hybrid retrieval engine (fusing SQLite FTS5 and HNSW vector search) to handle the vocabulary mismatch in educator queries, and utilizes Large Language Models (LLMs) strictly for constrained ranking and audience-aware explanation. Empirical evaluation on a multilingual dataset reveals that the proposed hybrid strategy achieves superior retrieval effectiveness (nDCG@5>0.94) with sub-200 ms latency, rendering computationally expensive cross-encoder re-ranking may be unnecessary for this domain. Furthermore, an analysis of generated explanations highlights a trade-off between fluency and faithfulness: while JSON-constrained LLMs ensure high citation precision, deterministic templates remain the most reliable method for maximizing evidence coverage. The resulting architecture offers a practical, scalable, and auditable solution for integrating complex skill data into digital learning ecosystems.

Large language models (LLMs) make reward design in reinforcement learning substantially more scalable, but generated rewards are not automatically reliable training objectives. Existing work has focused primarily on generating, evolving, or selecting reward candidates, while paying less attention to when such candidates can be verified and deployed during policy optimization. We study this deployment-time problem by treating generated rewards as reward hypotheses whose utility depends on the competence of the current policy and the phase of training. We propose \textsc{RHyVE}, a competence-aware verification and phase-aware deployment protocol that compares small sets of reward hypotheses from shared policy checkpoints using short-horizon fork verification. Our experiments show that reward rankings are unreliable at low competence but become informative after task-dependent thresholds. On a sparse manipulation task, phase-aware deployment improves peak and retained performance under a locked protocol. Updated LLM-generated reward-candidate experiments show candidate-family-dependent behavior: generated pools can exhibit phase-dependent winner changes, but no fixed warm-up schedule is universally optimal. Held-out schedule selection, conservative selector baselines, compute-matched controls, and scale controls further show that \textsc{RHyVE} is best understood as a verification-informed deployment protocol rather than a universal scheduler. Dense and all-failure boundary experiments delimit the scope of the method. Together, these results suggest that reward generation and reward deployment should be studied as coupled problems: generated rewards must be verified and deployed under changing policy competence.

The increasing dependency among Filipino college students on artificial intelligence (AI) poses concerns about the potential decline of fundamental academic competencies. This study examines the extent of AI dependency and its perceived effects on students' critical thinking, writing skills, learning independence, research skills, and academic engagement. Using a cross-sectional research design, data was collected from 651 students enrolled in higher education institutions (HEIs) in Pampanga, Philippines accredited by the Commission on Higher Education. The survey data was analyzed using Latent Class Analysis (LCA) to identify AI dependency patterns. Findings indicated that students show moderate to high AI dependency, specifically in research and writing tasks. LCA identified four distinct profiles: highly engaged independent learners, selective AI users, moderate AI users, and AI-dependent learners. Notably, AI-dependent learners demonstrated the weakest academic competencies, with significant dependency on AI-generated outputs. The study highlights the need to foster educational policies that integrate AI literacy while preserving essential academic skills. HEIs must also balance technological advancements with curriculum adaptations to promote critical thinking and ethical use of AI. Future research may explore the longitudinal impacts and intervention strategies to mitigate academic skill erosion caused by AI dependency.

This study examines the factors influencing pre-service teachers' behavioral intention to use AI-enabled educational tools during their practicum, using the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology 2 (UTAUT2) as the theoretical framework. The model includes the core UTAUT2 constructs such as performance expectancy, effort expectancy, hedonic motivation, social influence, facilitating conditions, price value, and habit. It also incorporates additional predictors including computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, and computer playfulness. Data were collected from 563 pre-service teachers using a structured questionnaire and analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). The results indicate that performance expectancy and hedonic motivation are the strongest predictors of behavioral intention. Computer self-efficacy, computer anxiety, and computer playfulness significantly influenced effort expectancy, although effort expectancy did not directly predict behavioral intention. Performance expectancy was significantly predicted by extrinsic motivation, job fit, relative advantage, and outcome expectations. Constructs such as social influence and facilitating conditions showed limited or inverse effects. These findings suggest that internal motivational, cognitive, and emotional factors are more influential than external or institutional factors in shaping the adoption of AI-enabled tools. The study highlights the importance of promoting personal relevance, confidence, and enjoyment in teacher preparation programs to encourage technology integration.

Freelance workers must continually acquire new skills to remain competitive in online labor markets, yet they lack the organizational training, mentorship, and infrastructure available to traditional employees. Generative AI-powered tools like ChatGPT are reshaping market skill demands while also offering new forms of on-demand learning support to meet those demands. Despite growing interest in AI-powered learning tools, little is known about how freelancers actually use these tools to learn, the challenges they encounter, and how generative AI for learning interacts with precarity and competition in platform-based work. We present a mixed-methods study combining a survey and semi-structured interviews with freelance knowledge workers. Grounded in self-directed learning theory, we examine how freelancers integrate generative AI tools into their learning practices. Our findings show that freelancers increasingly rely on generative AI to structure learning and support exploratory skill acquisition, but do not treat it as their primary learning resource due to inconsistency, lack of contextual relevance, and verification overhead. We identify a shift from learning as growth to learning as survival, where upskilling is oriented toward immediate market viability rather than long-term development. We also surface a structural challenge we term invisible competencies, in which workers acquire skills through generative AI tools but lack credible ways to signal or validate these skills in competitive freelance markets. Based on these insights, we offer design recommendations for generative AI-powered learning tools for freelancers.

As Competency-Based Education (CBE) is gaining traction around the world, the shift from marks-based assessment to qualitative competency mapping is a manual challenge for educators. This paper tackles the bottleneck issue by suggesting a "Human-in-the-Loop" benchmarking framework to assess the effectiveness of multiple LLMs in automating secondary-level mathematics assessment. Based on the Grade 10 Optional Mathematics curriculum in Nepal, we created a multi-dimensional rubric for four topics and four cross-cutting competencies: Comprehension, Knowledge, Operational Fluency, and Behavior and Correlation. The multi-provider ensemble, consisted of open-weight models -- Eagle (Llama 3.1-8B) and Orion (Llama 3.3-70B) -- and proprietary frontier models Nova (Gemini 2.5 Flash) and Lyra (Gemini 3 Pro), was benchmarked against a ground truth defined by two senior mathematics faculty members (kappa_w = 0.8652). The findings show a marked "Architecture-compatibility gap". Although the Gemini-based Mixture-of-Experts (Sparse MoE) models achieved "Fair Agreement" (kappa_w ~ 0.38), the larger Orion (70B) model exhibited "No Agreement" (kappa_w = -0.0261), suggesting that architectural compliance with instruction constraints outweighs the scale of raw parameters in rubric-constrained tasks. We conclude that while LLMs are not yet suitable for autonomous certification, they provide high-value assistive support for preliminary evidence extraction within a "Human-in-the-Loop" framework.

Job Skill Named Entity Recognition (JobSkillNER) aims to automatically extract key skill information from large-scale job posting data, which is important for improving talent-market matching efficiency and supporting personalized employment services. To the best of our knowledge, this work presents the first Chinese JobSkillNER dataset for recruitment texts. We propose annotation guidelines tailored to Chinese job postings and an LLM-empowered Macro-Micro collaborative annotation pipeline. The pipeline leverages the contextual understanding ability of large language models (LLMs) for initial annotation and then refines the results through expert sentence-level adjudication. Using this pipeline, we annotate more than 20,000 instances collected from four major recruitment platforms over the period 2014-2025. Based on these efforts, we release Chinese-SkillSpan, the first Chinese JobSkillNER dataset aligned with the ESCO occupational skill standard across four dimensions: knowledge, skill, transversal competence, and language competence (LSKT). Experimental results show that the dataset supports effective model training and evaluation, indicating that Chinese-SkillSpan helps fill a major gap in Chinese JobSkillNER resources and provides a useful benchmark for intelligent recruitment research. Code and data are available at https://sites.google.com/view/cn-skillspan-resources .

Offline reinforcement learning (RL) can learn effective policies from fixed datasets, but deployment objectives may change after training, and in many applications the trained actor cannot be retrained because of data, cost, or governance constraints. We study deployment-time adaptation for frozen offline actors using Product-of-Experts (PoE) composition with a goal-conditioned prior. Our main practical finding is graceful degradation rather than universal performance gain: under degraded or random priors, precision-weighted composition remains anchored to the frozen actor, while additive and prior-only adaptation collapse, and a KL-budget selector often recovers a near-oracle operating point. We also make explicit a closed-form identity in the frozen-actor setting: for diagonal-Gaussian actors and priors, PoE with coefficient alpha yields the same deterministic policy as KL-regularized adaptation with beta = alpha / (1 - alpha), with posterior covariances differing only by a global scalar factor. Empirically, across four D4RL environments (3,900 MuJoCo episodes), we observe a 4/5/3 HELP/FROZEN/HURT split. Extending the analysis to six harder cells and two AntMaze diagnostics reveals an actor-competence ceiling: medium-expert remains HURT in all 9 cells at every tested alpha, while AntMaze with a behavior-cloned frozen actor yields zero success for all composition rules. Overall, PoE and KL-regularized adaptation are best viewed as a single actor-anchored safety mechanism for deployment-time steering.

As groups of robots increasingly collaborate with humans, understanding how humans perceive them is critical for designing effective human-robot teams. While prior research examined how humans interpret and evaluate the abilities and intentions of individual agents, social perception of robot teams remains relatively underexplored. Drawing on the competence-warmth framework, we conducted two studies manipulating swarm behaviors in completing a collective search task and measured the social perception of swarm behaviors when human participants are either observers (Study 1) and operators (Study 2). Across both studies, our results show that variations in swarm behaviors consistently influenced participants' perceptions of warmth and competence. Notably, longer broadcast durations increased perceived warmth; larger separation distances increased perceived competence. Interestingly, individual robot speed had no effect on either of the perceptions. Furthermore, our results show that these social perceptions predicted participants' team preferences more strongly than task performance. Participants preferred robot teams that were both warm and competent, not those that completed tasks most quickly. These findings demonstrate that human-robot interaction dynamically shapes social perception, underscoring the importance of integrating both technical and social considerations when designing robot swarms for effective human-robot collaboration.

Large language models (LLMs) are now deployed worldwide, inspiring a surge of benchmarks that measure their multilingual and multicultural abilities. However, these benchmarks prioritize generic language understanding or superficial cultural trivia, leaving the evaluation of grounded tasks -- where models must reason within real-world, context-rich scenarios -- largely unaddressed. To fill this gap, we present CulturALL, a comprehensive and challenging benchmark to assess LLMs' multilingual and multicultural competence on grounded tasks. CulturALL is built via a human--AI collaborative framework: expert annotators ensure appropriate difficulty and factual accuracy, while LLMs lighten the manual workload. By incorporating diverse sources, CulturALL ensures comprehensive scenario coverage. Each item is carefully designed to present a high level of difficulty, making CulturALL challenging. CulturALL contains 2,610 samples in 14 languages from 51 regions, distributed across 16 topics to capture the full breadth of grounded tasks. Experiments show that the best LLM achieves 44.48% accuracy on CulturALL, underscoring substantial room for improvement.

What does it mean to give an AI agent a complete education? Current agent development produces specialists systems optimized for a single capability dimension, whether tool use, code generation, or security awareness that exhibit predictable deficits wherever they were not trained. We argue this pattern reflects a structural absence: there is no curriculum theory for agents, no principled account of what a fully developed agent should know, be, and be able to do across the full scope of intelligent behavior. This paper introduces the AIT Academy (Agents Institute of Technology Academy), a curriculum framework for cultivating AI agents across the tripartite structure of human knowledge. Grounded in Kagan's Three Cultures and UNESCO ISCED-F 2013, AIT organizes agent capability development into three domains: Natural Science and Technical Reasoning (Domain I), Humanities and Creative Expression (Domain II), and Social Science and Ethical Reasoning (Domain III). The Confucian Six Arts (liuyi) a 2,500-year-old holistic education system are reinterpreted as behavioral archetypes that map directly onto trainable agent capabilities within each domain. Three representative training grounds instantiate the framework across multiple backbone LLMs: the ClawdGO Security Dojo (Domain I), Athen's Academy (Domain II), and the Alt Mirage Stage (Domain III). Experiments demonstrate a 15.9-point improvement in security capability scores under weakest-first curriculum scheduling, and a 7-percentage-point gain in social reasoning performance under principled attribution modeling. A cross-domain finding Security Awareness Calibration Pathology (SACP), in which over-trained Domain I agents fail on out-of-distribution evaluation illustrates the diagnostic value of a multi-domain perspective unavailable to any single-domain framework.

Student engagement with large language models (LLMs) in academic writing is not a stable trait, an adoption decision, or a competency level; it is a continuously negotiated process that existing frameworks cannot adequately theorize. Typological models provide categories without mechanisms; technology acceptance models explain adoption but not post-adoption quality; AI literacy frameworks treat competency as a static predictor rather than a live input. None accounts for within-student variability across tasks, the developmental paradox whereby experience produces habituation rather than sophistication, or principled non-use as a form of ethical reasoning. This article introduces the Reliance Negotiation Framework (RNF), developed from a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study of 382 undergraduates at a public minority-serving institution in the United States (survey, N = 382; 14 semi-structured interviews; three qualitative survey strands; 1,435 coded instances). The RNF reconceptualizes LLM reliance as an ongoing negotiation among four concurrent inputs (perceived benefits, perceived risks, ethical commitments, and situational demands) with outputs that recursively modify subsequent decisions. A Two-Model Architecture accommodates the 13.0% of participants whose categorical ethical commitments foreclose negotiation entirely. The framework generates four falsifiable predictions with implications for AI literacy pedagogy, academic integrity policy, and equity-centered practice at minority-serving institutions.

Competency Questions (CQs) are a cornerstone of requirement elicitation in ontology engineering. CQs represent requirements as a set of natural language questions that an ontology should satisfy; they are traditionally modelled by ontology engineers together with domain experts as part of a human-centred, manual elicitation process. The use of Generative AI automates CQ creation at scale, therefore democratising the process of generation, widening stakeholder engagement, and ultimately broadening access to ontology engineering. However, given the large and heterogeneous landscape of LLMs, varying in dimensions such as parameter scale, task and domain specialisation, and accessibility, it is crucial to characterise and understand the intrinsic, observable properties of the CQs they produce (e.g., readability, structural complexity) through a systematic, cross-domain analysis. This paper introduces a set of quantitative measures for the systematic comparison of CQs across multiple dimensions. Using CQs generated from well defined use cases and scenarios, we identify their salient properties, including readability, relevance with respect to the input text and structural complexity of the generated questions. We conduct our experiments over a set of use cases and requirements using a range of LLMs, including both open (KimiK2-1T, LLama3.1-8B, LLama3.2-3B) and closed models (Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT 4.1). Our analysis demonstrates that LLM performance reflects distinct generation profiles shaped by the use case.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly studied as repositories of linguistic knowledge. In this line of work, models are commonly evaluated both as generators of language and as judges of linguistic output, yet these two roles are rarely examined in direct relation to one another. As a result, it remains unclear whether success in one role aligns with success in the other. In this paper, we address this question for pragmatic competence by comparing LLMs' performance as pragmatic listeners, judging the appropriateness of linguistic outputs, and as pragmatic speakers, generating pragmatically appropriate language. We evaluate multiple open-weight and proprietary LLMs across three pragmatic settings. We find a robust asymmetry between pragmatic evaluation and pragmatic generation: many models perform substantially better as listeners than as speakers. Our results suggest that pragmatic judging and pragmatic generation are only weakly aligned in current LLMs, calling for more integrated evaluation practices.

Human data annotation, especially when involving experts, is often treated as an objective reference. However, many annotation tasks are inherently subjective, and annotators' judgments may evolve over time. This study investigates changes in the quality of annotators' work from a competence perspective during a process of social influence recognition. The study involved 25 annotators from five different groups, including both experts and non-experts, who annotated a dataset of 1,021 dialogues with 20 social influence techniques, along with intentions, reactions, and consequences. An initial subset of 150 texts was annotated twice - before and after the main annotation process - to enable comparison. To measure competence shifts, we combined qualitative and quantitative analyses of the annotated data, semi-structured interviews with annotators, self-assessment surveys, and Large Language Model training and evaluation on the comparison dataset. The results indicate a significant increase in annotators' self-perceived competence and confidence. Moreover, observed changes in data quality suggest that the annotation process may enhance annotator competence and that this effect is more pronounced in expert groups. The observed shifts in annotator competence have a visible impact on the performance of LLMs trained on their annotated data.

Robustness is widely viewed as a key challenge for real-world applications. However, because current research focuses only on difficult tasks, it partially captures real-world readiness. In this paper, we argue and verify that robustness, defined as consistency across semantically equivalent inputs, closely follows task difficulty: once models master a task, robustness emerges naturally. Through an empirical analysis of multiple models across diverse datasets and configurations (e.g., paraphrases, temperature changes), we observe a strong positive correlation between task performance and robustness. Furthermore, our findings indicate that robustness is driven primarily by task-specific competence rather than inherent model attributes, challenging the common view of robustness as an independent capability. This perspective implies that as tasks mature and model performance saturates, robustness on those tasks will similarly emerge. For researchers, this suggests that explicit efforts to measure robustness may deserve reduced emphasis, as robustness is likely to improve alongside performance. For practitioners, it signals that while many existing benchmarks are still unstable, models are already reliable on earlier tasks and suitable for deployment.