The Policy Deficit in AI x Social-Emotional Learning Research

As artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into social-emotional learning (SEL) initiatives, the need for evidence-based policy has become paramount. We systematically reviewed 65 peer-reviewed papers that examine the intersection of AI and SEL to investigate how these studies articulate policy implications. Our analysis revealed a substantial "policy deficit" in the current AI x SEL literature: nearly three-quarters of the studies did not mention policy implications at all. Using the "WH-question" framework (Who, What, Why, When/Where, and How), we map the policy implications narratives present in the literature and show that they often lack the specificity and actor-oriented guidance required for effective evidence-informed policymaking. We find a significant association between publication venue and policy engagement, suggesting that current academic incentive structures may prioritize technical innovation and pedagogical feasibility over explicit engagement with governance and regulation. This study identifies a "techno-solutionist" trap, where technical potential is foregrounded while the institutional conditions for responsible implementation remain under-specified. We conclude by proposing a shift from "implication-as-afterthought" to "implication-as-methodology" and offer a set of actionable guidelines for researchers, editors, reviewers, and policymakers to bridge the gap between AI innovation and educational governance. Rather than presenting policy as a generic ethical horizon, we argue that AI-SEL studies should systematically specify Who should act, What actions are recommended, Why these actions are needed, When and Where they apply, and How strongly they are framed, thereby strengthening the translation of AI x SEL innovation into educational policy and practice.

Two AI Metrics Diverged: Will it Make All the Difference?

As exponential compute scaling continues, will the capabilities of frontier AI models outstrip what is accessible to developers on a small fixed budget? Or will capabilities converge, with "meek models inheriting the earth"? Building on Gundlach et al. (2025b), we show that the answer depends on how we value and measure AI capabilities. We discuss conventional performance measures and show that, while validation loss shows a shrinking gap, on other metrics frontier models grow their lead forever. Classifying performance metrics by their functional forms in relation to training (and inference) compute, we provide tight mathematical conditions for determining which metrics favor meek models, and show that bounded performance metrics always do. But careful interpretation of performance metrics is essential: we show that many common bounded metrics have closely-related counterpart metrics that are unbounded (and vice versa). Determining the apt metric in a domain is a prerequisite for policy, since bounded and unbounded metrics may suggest opposing policy responses. If a particular capability -- like software engineering, synthetic biology, or rhetorical persuasiveness -- is unbounded when measured in the terms we care about, frontier-level capability will likely be concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy actors. Conversely, if that capability is instead bounded, frontier-level capabilities proliferate through meek models into the hands of the many.

When Agents Meet Electric Bus Fleet Operations: Pricing Behavior, Trade-offs, and Policy Implications in an Aggregator Framework

Agentic systems are changing how complex operational tasks are coordinated, introducing a new paradigm for connecting heterogeneous data sources and automating processes. Electric bus fleets provide a relevant test case. Their operation requires continuous coordination between service reliability, battery state-of-charge, charger availability, electricity prices, route-energy uncertainty, and vehicle-to-grid (V2G) opportunities. This paper proposes an agentic aggregator framework that streamlines this decision environment by coupling an optimization-based electric bus scheduling model with supervisory agents for disturbance detection, tariff adaptation, and schedule evaluation. The optimization core enforces physical feasibility across routes, chargers, batteries, and V2G exchanges, while the agentic layer interprets changing operating conditions, triggers real-time re-optimization when needed, and defines how flexibility value is allocated between the aggregator and the public transport operator (PTO). A realistic depot case study evaluates day-ahead and real-time operations under profit-based and operation-based coordination modes, considering service delays, route-energy deviations, electricity price shocks, and combined disturbances. The results show that agentic aggregation can support adaptive fleet-grid coordination by maintaining feasible schedules, activating re-optimization selectively, and improving the use of charging and V2G flexibility. However, they also reveal a critical trade-off: the same agentic capability that reduces operational complexity can extract value from the PTO when configured around profit-oriented pricing. These findings suggest that agentic aggregators can become useful for managing electric bus V2G operations, but their deployment in public-fleet contexts requires transparent coordination modes, auditable tariff-setting, and explicit value-sharing rules.