Abstract
Aggregate reliability estimates can obscure heterogeneity in measurement-design burden across response conditions, so a single G- or D-study may mischaracterize a design's adequacy for particular strata. This study introduces a conditional generalizability framework with three components. First, automated scoring configurations -- the encoder architectures and scoring-head families admissible within a fixed pipeline -- are treated as a universe of admissible measurement conditions rather than incidental modeling choices. Second, analytical D-study projections are compared with empirical configuration sweeps over a finite scoring pool, yielding two estimands of design adequacy whose agreement or divergence diagnoses the realized configuration universe. Third, evidence is conditioned on entropy-defined response strata, treating entropy as an operational stratification variable, not a construct claim about writing quality. Whereas recent generalizability-theory extensions address AI-generated item variants on the response side, this framework addresses the analogous scoring-side problem: AI-mediated scoring configurations. Demonstrated with automated essay scoring of timed L2 writing, the realized design was dependable in aggregate (Phi approx 0.76). Re-estimated within entropy strata, dependability stayed high but declined modestly and robustly (Phi = 0.88, 0.87, 0.84) -- a gradient implying different decision-study requirements, the highest-entropy stratum requiring the most crossed conditions. The framework offers a portable workflow for evaluating nonuniform dependability.
Explore similar work
Jul 15, 2026cs.CL
Automated essay scoring (AES) research has largely focused on cross-prompt generalization, where essays from unseen prompts are scored while the scoring criteria are typically held constant. In practice, however, educators may revise or even introduce new rubrics in their scoring task, to evaluate different aspects of essays. We study cross-rubric generalization: training on essays labeled under one set of rubrics and evaluating on previously unseen rubrics, which target different aspects of the essay. We use a Large Language Model (LLM) fine-tuning framework with two components: rubric-agnostic intermediate representations, called traits, and target-essay supervision under seen rubrics during training. On an AES dataset augmented with multiple rubric-defined labels of student critical thinking skills, we find that traits improve macro F1 by 5.0% over a baseline without traits in the hardest setting, where both target rubrics and target essays are unseen during training. We further find that increasing target-essay supervision improves performance, with our best fine-tuned open-source Llama-based model outperforming GPT-5-mini prompting by 2.1% macro F1 and trailing GPT-5 by 1.9%. These results show that trait-based intermediate structure and controlled supervision improve generalization to unseen rubrics.
Nischal Ashok Kumar, Payu Wittawatolarn, Sana Kang +7
May 19, 2026cs.AI
When the same LLM generates assessment items, simulates student responses, and scores them, the validation loop is self-referential. We introduce Generative-Evaluative Agreement (GEA), a validity criterion measuring whether an LLM's scoring function recovers the skill levels its generative function was instructed to produce. In the first direct measurement of GEA on a two-stage adaptive assessment, the model recovers roughly half the intended variance r = 0.698 with systematic positive bias. GEA is strong r > 0.7 for syntactically verifiable skills but near zero for design-level skills, and low-skill overestimation inflates scores near the routing threshold. We argue that granular, skill-decomposed rubrics are the principal proposed mechanism for strengthening GEA and outline complementary mitigations.
Grandee Lee, Yue Wang, Che Yee Lye +1
Jun 1, 2026cs.CL
In Automated Essay Scoring (AES), benchmarking practices have fostered minimalist evaluation practices, in contrast with the broader-view recommendations of evaluation frameworks, such as the argument-based validation framework (ABV), which argued in favor of a multidimensional assessment of systems, especially in the context of high-stakes language tests. In this paper, we introduce an enhanced and more practical version of the ABV framework, incorporating fairness analysis, correlations with linguistic features, prediction error evaluation, and model agreement compared with human raters. Applying this framework to French AES, we compare 8 model architectures on a corpus of 27k exam essays (2 raters each) and a generalization corpus of 961 essays (at least nine raters each). Our analyses illustrate the benefits of applying the ABV framework to better understand the capabilities and pitfalls of AES models, while also advancing the state-of-the-art for French AES.
Rodrigo Wilkens, Rémi Cardon, Vincent Folny +1