The predominant de facto paradigm of testing ML models relies on either using only held-out data to compute aggregate evaluation metrics or by assessing the performance on different subgroups.

This paper presents the AR fairness metamodel, aimed at formally representing, analyzing, and comparing fairness scenarios. The metamodel provides an abstract representation of fairness, enabling the formal definition of fairness notions. We instantiate the metamodel through several examples, with a particular focus on comparing the notions of equity and equality. We use the Tiles framework, which offers modular components that can be interconnected to represent various definitions of fairness. Its primary objective is to support the operationalization of AR-based fairness definitions in a range of scenarios, providing a robust method for defining, comparing, and evaluating fairness. Tiles has an open-source implementation for fairness modeling and evaluation.

The predominant de facto paradigm of testing ML models relies on either using only held-out data to compute aggregate evaluation metrics or by assessing the performance on different subgroups.

Coordinated online behavior, which spans from beneficial collective actions to harmful manipulation such as disinformation campaigns, has become a key focus in digital ecosystem analysis. Traditional methods often rely on monomodal approaches, focusing on single types of interactions like co-retweets or co-hashtags, or consider multiple modalities independently of each other. However, these approaches may overlook the complex dynamics inherent in multimodal coordination. This study compares different ways of operationalizing the detection of multimodal coordinated behavior. It examines the trade-off between weakly and strongly integrated multimodal models, highlighting the balance between capturing broader coordination patterns and identifying tightly coordinated behavior. By comparing monomodal and multimodal approaches, we assess the unique contributions of different data modalities and explore how varying implementations of multimodality impact detection outcomes. Our findings reveal that not all the modalities provide distinct insights, but that with a multimodal approach we can get a more comprehensive understanding of coordination dynamics. This work enhances the ability to detect and analyze coordinated online behavior, offering new perspectives for safeguarding the integrity of digital platforms.

The notion of machine companions has long been embedded in social-technological imaginaries. Recent advances in AI have moved those media musings into believable sociality manifested in interfaces, robotic bodies, and devices. Those machines are often referred to colloquially as "companions" yet there is little careful engagement of machine companionship (MC) as a formal concept or measured variable. This PRISMA-guided scoping review systematically samples, surveys, and synthesizes current scholarly works on MC (N = 71; 2017-2025), to that end. Works varied widely in considerations of MC according to guiding theories, dimensions of a-priori specified properties (subjectively positive, sustained over time, co-active, autotelic), and in measured concepts (with more than 50 distinct measured variables). WE ultimately offer a literature-guided definition of MC as an autotelic, coordinated connection between human and machine that unfolds over time and is subjectively positive.

Organizations developing machine learning-based (ML) technologies face the complex challenge of achieving high predictive performance while respecting the law. This intersection between ML and the law creates new complexities. As ML model behavior is inferred from training data, legal obligations cannot be operationalized in source code directly. Rather, legal obligations require "indirect" operationalization. However, choosing context-appropriate operationalizations presents two compounding challenges: (1) laws often permit multiple valid operationalizations for a given legal obligation-each with varying degrees of legal adequacy; and, (2) each operationalization creates unpredictable trade-offs among the different legal obligations and with predictive performance. Evaluating these trade-offs requires metrics (or heuristics), which are in turn difficult to validate against legal obligations. Current methodologies fail to fully address these interwoven challenges as they either focus on legal compliance for traditional software or on ML model development without adequately considering legal complexities. In response, we introduce a five-stage interdisciplinary framework that integrates legal and ML-technical analysis during ML model development. This framework facilitates designing ML models in a legally aligned way and identifying high-performing models that are legally justifiable. Legal reasoning guides choices for operationalizations and evaluation metrics, while ML experts ensure technical feasibility, performance optimization and an accurate interpretation of metric values. This framework bridges the gap between more conceptual analysis of law and ML models' need for deterministic specifications. We illustrate its application using a case study in the context of anti-money laundering.

--Detection of carelessness in digital learning platforms has relied on the contextual slip model, which leverages conditional probability and Bayesian Knowledge Tracing (BKT) to identify careless errors, where students make mistakes despite having the knowledge. However, this model cannot effectively assess carelessness in questions tagged with multiple skills due to the use of conditional probability. This limitation narrows the scope within which the model can be applied. Thus, we propose a novel model, the Beyond-Knowledge Feature Carelessness (BKFC) model. The model detects careless errors using performance factor analysis (PF A) and behavioral features distilled from log data, controlling for knowledge when detecting carelessness. We applied the BKFC to detect carelessness in data from middle school students playing a learning game on decimal numbers and operations. We conducted analyses comparing the careless errors detected using contextual slip to the BKFC model. Unexpectedly, careless errors identified by these two approaches did not align. We found students' post-test performance was (corresponding to past results) positively associated with the carelessness detected using the contextual slip model, while negatively associated with the carelessness detected using the BKFC model. These results highlight the complexity of carelessness and underline a broader challenge in operationalizing carelessness and careless errors. Academic discussions of carelessness in classrooms date back to the 1950s [1]. Often viewed as the result of ineffective self-regulation, carelessness is thought to occur when students commit hurried or impulsive behaviors that result in mistakes on problems that could have been answered correctly. By distinguishing mistakes made due to carelessness from those caused by other factors, such as lack of knowledge, adaptive instruction can be provided to engage or reengage students in the effective use of self-regulation during the process of problem-solving. In the last several decades, two streams of work have run in parallel to investigate carelessness and detect careless behaviors.

Conceptual operationalizations of empathy in NLP are varied, with some having specific behaviors and properties, while others are more abstract. How these variations relate to one another and capture properties of empathy observable in text remains unclear. To provide insight into this, we analyze the transfer performance of empathy models adapted to empathy tasks with different theoretical groundings. We study (1) the dimensionality of empathy definitions, (2) the correspondence between the defined dimensions and measured/observed properties, and (3) the conduciveness of the data to represent them, finding they have a significant impact to performance compared to other transfer setting features. Characterizing the theoretical grounding of empathy tasks as direct, abstract, or adjacent further indicates that tasks that directly predict specified empathy components have higher transferability. Our work provides empirical evidence for the need for precise and multidimensional empathy operationalizations.

A growing amount of literature critiques the current operationalizations of empathy based on loose definitions of the construct. Such definitions negatively affect dataset quality, model robustness, and evaluation reliability. We propose an empathy evaluation framework that operationalizes empathy close to its psychological origins. The framework measures the variance in responses of LLMs to prompts using existing metrics for empathy and emotional valence. The variance is introduced through the controlled generation of the prompts by varying social biases affecting context understanding, thus impacting empathetic understanding. The control over generation ensures high theoretical validity of the constructs in the prompt dataset. Also, it makes high-quality translation, especially into languages that currently have little-to-no way of evaluating empathy or bias, such as the Slavonic family, more manageable. Using chosen LLMs and various prompt types, we demonstrate the empathy evaluation with the framework, including multiple-choice answers and free generation. The variance in our initial evaluation sample is small and we were unable to measure convincing differences between the empathetic understanding in contexts given by different social groups. However, the results are promising because the models showed significant alterations their reasoning chains needed to capture the relatively subtle changes in the prompts. This provides the basis for future research into the construction of the evaluation sample and statistical methods for measuring the results.

The predominant de facto paradigm of testing ML models relies on either using only held-out data to compute aggregate evaluation metrics or by assessing the performance on different subgroups. However, such data-only testing methods operate under the restrictive assumption that the available empirical data is the sole input for testing ML models, disregarding valuable contextual information that could guide model testing. In this paper, we challenge the go-to approach of data-only testing and introduce context-aware testing (CAT) which uses context as an inductive bias to guide the search for meaningful model failures. We instantiate the first CAT system, SMART Testing, which employs large language models to hypothesize relevant and likely failures, which are evaluated on data using a self-falsification mechanism. Through empirical evaluations in diverse settings, we show that SMART automatically identifies more relevant and impactful failures than alternatives, demonstrating the potential of CAT as a testing paradigm.