cs.DBMar 5, 2026

Deterministic Preprocessing and Interpretable Fuzzy Banding for Cost-per-Student Reporting from Extracted Records

Authors: Shane Lee, Stella Ng

Organizations: School of Computer Science, University of Technology Sydney · Management Discipline Group, University of Technology Sydney

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

Administrative extracts are often exchanged as spreadsheets and may be read as reports in their own right during budgeting, workload review, and governance discussions. When an exported workbook becomes the reference snapshot for such decisions, the transformation can be checked by recomputation against a clearly identified input. A deterministic, rule-governed, file-based workflow is implemented in cad_processor.py. The script ingests a Casual Academic Database (CAD) export workbook and aggregates inclusive on-costs and student counts into subject-year and school-year totals, from which it derives cost-per-student ratios. It writes a processed workbook with four sheets: Processing Summary (run record and counters), Trend Analysis (schoolyear cost-per-student matrix), Report (wide subject-level table), and Fuzzy Bands (per-year anchors, membership weights, and band labels). The run record includes a SHA-256 hash of the input workbook bytes to support snapshot-matched recomputation. For within-year interpretation, the workflow adds a simple fuzzy banding layer that labels finite, positive school-year cost-per-student values as Low, Medium, or High. The per-year anchors are the minimum, median, and maximum of the finite, positive ratios. Membership weights are computed using left-shoulder, triangular, and right-shoulder functions, with deterministic tie-breaking in a fixed priority order (Medium, then Low, then High). These weights are treated as decision-support signals rather than probabilities. A worked example provides a reproducible calculation of a band assignment from the reported anchors and ratios. Supplementary material includes a claim-to-evidence matrix, a reproducibility note, and a short glossary that links selected statements to code and workbook artefacts.

More in this topic

Spreadsheet Automation

Spreadsheet automation uses AI to understand, create, edit, and validate workbooks while preserving their formulas, structure, and intended use.

See all 20 papers

Explore similar work

CardsList
Oct 13, 2026

From Efficiency to Sufficiency: The Cost-Aware Measurement Design Framework for Automated Essay Scoring

Compute cost in automated essay scoring (AES) is usually treated as a technical efficiency issue rather than a measurement design concern. Yet deployment decisions require more than reporting latency, model size, or inference expense. In high-stakes settings, total burden includes validation, monitoring, adjudication, compliance, and governance; in instructional settings, pricing, licensing, and integration may dominate cost. This paper reframes AES as a cost-constrained measurement system and introduces the Cost-Aware Measurement Design (CAMD) Framework, a four-layer structure consisting of metering, allocation, unit economics, and decision, for translating computational and workflow resource records into decision-relevant cost constructs. Direct cost is specified as monetary outlay plus attributable labor and time, and two criteria, design attribution and auditability, determine what the cost boundary excludes. Burdens that satisfy neither criterion, such as institutional capability and governance posture, are represented as constraints on which designs are admissible rather than priced. The paper defines cost per defensible score (CPDS) and argues that AES systems should be compared by quality-cost sufficiency: minimizing cost among defensible scoring designs that satisfy measurement requirements. Scoring volume conditions all four layers, so cost per defensible score is treated as a function of scale rather than as a single transferable number. CAMD provides a portable basis for representing, comparing, and evaluating cost across AES studies and deployment contexts.

Yi Gui

Measurement Inc.

Automated Essay ScoringEducational Assessment
AskPDF
Jul 29, 2026

Cost-Sensitive Conformal Prediction and Human-in-the-Loop Abstention for Imbalanced High-Stakes Decision Support: A Multi-Domain Benchmark

High-stakes decision systems in credit scoring, fraud detection, healthcare, and industrial safety require reliable uncertainty quantification under severe class imbalance and asymmetric error costs. Standard marginal conformal prediction (CP) provides valid overall coverage guarantees; however, we show that it severely under-covers rare, costly minority classes, with minority-class coverage dropping to as low as 0.5% on certain datasets. To characterize and address this limitation, we conduct a comprehensive benchmark comparing marginal CP, class-conditional (Mondrian) CP, and cost-controlled abstention mechanisms across 15 real-world imbalanced tabular datasets, 7 classification models, 3 probability calibration techniques, and 10 random seeds, resulting in 3,150 experimental runs. Our results show that Mondrian CP restores valid minority-class coverage, achieving an average minority-coverage improvement of 61.7 percentage points over marginal CP (p < 1e-80). Furthermore, combining Mondrian CP with cost-controlled abstention significantly reduces expected decision cost compared with standard decision boundaries, confidence-based rejectors, and risk-controlled rejectors under realistic human review budgets. We further quantify dataset-specific break-even thresholds at which deferring ambiguous instances to human experts becomes cost-effective. These findings provide practical guidance for deploying distribution-free, cost-aware uncertainty quantification in high-stakes decision support systems.

Manpreet Singh, Akshatha Srikantha, Shyamal Lakhanpal

Class-Imbalanced LearningCost-Sensitive LearningSelective PredictionConformal Prediction
AskPDF
Aug 18, 2026

Grading Needs a Rubric, Not Intelligence

Small language models can grade open-ended examination answers as reliably as substantially more expensive models when they grade against an explicit rubric. We test this claim as the design principle behind any-to-bench: a frontier model reads source documents once, at ingestion, to extract each question and its rubric; lower-cost models then perform all repeated grading work. We evaluate six cost-efficient model configurations from two model families at three reasoning-effort levels. Each configuration answers 24 open-ended examination questions, and each also grades every answer sheet three times, yielding 3,456 per-question grades. Scores depend overwhelmingly on the answer being graded: answer identity explains 95.6% of score variance, whereas judge identity explains only 0.2%. Raising a writer's reasoning effort moves earned scores by as much as 0.143 of full marks, while raising a judge's reasoning effort moves assigned scores by at most 0.006. Six frontier-tier judges, added as a check, reproduce these scores and are no more reliable as a panel. Two ablations then decompose the rubric on the same questions and answers. Removing its criteria and levels while keeping the official answer changes nothing measurable. Removing the official answer as well collapses reliability (ICC 0.888 to 0.628), inflates scores, and makes judge reasoning effort matter again. The rubric is what decouples grading from judge intelligence, and within the rubric the official answer does nearly all the work. We find no evidence of length preference or same-family preference under rubric-anchored grading.

Jhen-Ke Lin

National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University

Automated GradingRubric-Based EvaluationLLM-as-a-JudgeLLM ReliabilityBias in LLM-as-a-Judge
AskPDF