Papers for

social robotics engineers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Solitary movement style predicts group foraging success but not leadership choices

Solitary movement style predicts collective foraging while whom to follow emerges only in company

Abstract: How far can behaviour inside a group, and the group's performance, be predicted from members measured while alone? We tested this on three public datasets of human collective foraging (621, 128 and 1,133 participants). A low-dimensional individual representation estimated from private-phase movement was mapped onto behaviour inside the group through a mapping learned on other participants. Private information processing was stable between the two halves of a session (split-half reliability, the correlation between the halves, 0.60--0.83) and predicted behaviour inside the group with correlations of 0.30--0.66. Selective social learning, following those who have succeeded or stopped, showed stable individual differences inside the group (reliability 0.45--0.59) yet was not predicted at all from the same person's private behaviour. Group performance was predicted with a correlation of 0.55 in all three datasets by simulations never fitted to group outcomes or by the mean of individually measured performance, a prediction carried by mobility and individual performance rather than by social weights. We found no credible evidence for an effect of how members were combined (equivalence bound 0.06). Whom to follow thus emerges only in company, which delimits what solitary measurements can predict and compose.

Tue 27 OctMultiagent Systems
The gist
This paper explores how well a person's behavior when alone can predict their actions and success in a group searching for resources. The authors analyzed large datasets of human groups and found that individual movement patterns alone can predict how well the group will perform. However, deciding who to follow in a group only happens when people are together, and cannot be guessed from solitary behavior. This shows that some social behaviors emerge only in the company of others, limiting what can be anticipated from studying individuals in isolation.
Open → 2610.37978v1

Multi feature analysis improves detection of conversation groups

Breakdown of Conversational Involvement: A Joint Multi-Modal Analysis of Conversation Floors and F-formation Detection with Multiple Features

Abstract: Interactions happen universally and spontaneously in daily lives. Studying involvement in interactions helps us analyze who can influence who and has a wide potential in applications. Specifically, we consider conversational involvement in free-standing conversations. We study two operationalizations of an FCG: F-formations and conversation floors, and propose that current assumption that F-formations capture single conversations is insufficient. To illustrate how different implementations could impact the detected F-formations, we employ three analyses. First, we propose that speaking status can be used for estimating conversation floors, and leveraged it to analyze floors within F-formations. Second, we analyze spatial characteristics of the detection results by applying different feature sets on chosen baselines, and find that groups resulting from head features are more likely to be subsumed by groups detected using other features. Finally, we do a joint analysis which combines the spatial features and floor patterns in the conversation. We observe that certain pipelines can detect groups with single floors from upper body features, while retaining F-formations with lower body features. We conclude that a more detailed theory and framework is needed to holistically demonstrate conversational involvement within interactions.

Tue 13 OctComputation and LanguageSocial and Information Networks
The gist
People often talk in groups, and understanding who is talking together helps us learn social connections and influence. The authors looked at two ways to spot these groups based on how people stand and take turns speaking. They found that the usual way of grouping people by where they stand doesn’t always match who is actually talking together. By using features like head and body position along with who is speaking, they showed it's possible to get a clearer picture of conversation groups. Their work suggests we need better theories and tools to fully understand how people interact in groups.
Open → 2610.18627v1

Large language models improve social skills through reinforcement fine-tuning

Playing social deduction games with reinforcement fine-tuned large language models

Abstract: Reinforcement fine-tuning (RFT) is increasingly used in applications where large language models (LLMs) interact with humans and other agents. Here we use social deduction games to study how RFT changes LLMs' social behaviour. We let fine-tuned and base LLM agents play hidden-role games that require hidden-state inference, social reading and vote steering. Our results show that LLM agents do not reliably acquire social-deduction ability by directly optimizing terminal win--loss outcomes, suggesting that final game results provide a sparse and noisy signal for socially interactive learning. However, RFT is particularly effective at improving social reading, including tasks that require agents to infer hidden roles from public discussion, update beliefs over time and predict other agents' future decisions. We further show that RFT can also improve social influence, including tasks that require agents to steer votes, team approvals and collective decisions, although these gains depend more strongly on behaviourally specific rewards and structured interaction settings. Finally, we show that LLMs' ability to play social deduction games can be further improved through multi-agent social-cognitive reinforcement fine-tuning, which combines social-reading and social-influence signals during same-side multi-agent training. These learned behaviours also receive more favourable human evaluations of strategic competence, persuasiveness and social usefulness. Together, these results enrich our understanding of how RFT changes LLMs' social behaviour and provide a step toward a behavioural learning theory for machine social intelligence.

Sat 3 OctComputation and LanguageArtificial IntelligenceMultiagent Systems
The gist
Playing social deduction games is hard because players need to guess others' secret roles and influence votes. The authors studied how training large language models (LLMs) with reinforcement helps them get better at these social skills. They found that just winning games doesn't teach LLMs much, but training focused on understanding social clues and influencing decisions improves their behavior. Combining both social reading and influence training works best and makes LLMs more convincing and strategically smart according to human judges.
Open → 2610.04261v1

Fairness evolves with competing goals in reinforcement learning games

Evolution of fairness in multi-objective reinforcement learning framework

Abstract: Fairness, as a fundamental social norm, continues to pose a longstanding puzzle regarding its emergence. Traditional game-theoretic models largely rely on the assumption of \emph{Homo economicus}, wherein individuals are purely rational and self-interested, acting solely to maximize material payoffs. Such accounts, however, overlook the multidimensional nature of human decision-making, which is often shaped also by other considerations beyond economic incentives. To address this gap, we propose a multi-objective reinforcement learning framework that models the evolution of fairness as a dynamic trade-off between material payoff maximization and fairness-driven moral behavior, regulated by a fairness pressure coefficient. Using simulations of a two-objective Q-learning ultimatum game, we find that increased fairness pressure promotes fair outcomes, as expected. Strikingly, however, under moderate pressure, responder behavior reverses: responders become ``forgiving" by accepting low offers -- a pattern in line with our daily experience. Microscopic analyses reveal that this strategy reversal stems from competition between payoff-maximizing and fairness-oriented preferences. We further extend our framework to an asymmetric setting, where proposers and responders assign different weights to the two objectives. Overall, our work expands the reinforcement learning paradigm from a single-objective to a multi-objective formulation, offering a versatile tool for elucidating a broader range of human social behaviors.

Mon 28 SeptMachine Learning
The gist
Fairness is a tricky idea to explain because people care about more than just winning or getting the most money. The researchers built a computer model where fairness and getting rewards both matter, and they change how much each counts. When fairness was a bit important, people accepted unfair offers more often, which is something we actually see in real life. Their model shows how fairness can emerge from the balance between wanting rewards and behaving morally.
Open → 2609.34114v1

Visual cues improve predicting who speaks next in face-to-face talks

Exploring Multimodal Turn-Taking Cues in Face-to-Face Conversation using Voice Activity Projection

Abstract: Turn-taking is a fundamental component of spoken interaction, and while humans naturally rely on both verbal and non-verbal signals, dialogue systems usually depend on audio cues alone. This paper investigates whether visual features from face-to-face conversations can enhance turn-taking prediction beyond what is achievable from audio-only. We extend the Voice Activity Projection (VAP) model, a self-supervised transformer-based model for predicting future voice activity, by incorporating visual features extracted from the large-scale Meta Seamless Interaction dataset of dyadic face-to-face conversations. The visual features include gaze direction, head movement, body and hand pose, and facial action units (FAU). For incorporating the visual features, we explore concatenation, cross-attention fusion, delta features, and trainable gating mechanisms. Results show that visual information improves performance over the audio-only baseline, with FAU being significantly more informative than other feature groups. Body and gaze features nevertheless contribute complementary information, as the model combining all features performs best. Furthermore, results indicate that performance on specific tasks varies depending on whether training and test data come from improvised (acted) or naturalistic (non-acted) conversations.

Sun 13 SeptComputation and LanguageSound
The gist
People use not just their voices but also their looks and gestures to decide when to take turns speaking in conversations. The authors studied how adding visual signals like where people look or how their faces move can help predict when someone will start talking. They used a special model that guesses future speaking activity and found that seeing facial movements adds important clues. Combining all visual signals worked better than just using sound, but some results changed depending on whether the talks were natural or acted.
Open → 2609.14666v1