Computerized Adaptive Testing

The surge in AI-assisted generation of educational materials has outpaced our capacity to validate their pedagogical quality. Automated evaluation using Bloom Classifier models is a promising approach to assess educational materials at scale. These models show high accuracy within-distribution dataset (IID Dataset). However, applying the same models to new out-of-distribution (OOD) datasets such as AI-assisted generated questions could show performance degradation. To identify robust classifiers under dataset shift, we evaluated traditional Machine Learning (ML), transformer, and Large Language models on the Bloom level classification task. We also explored feature-engineering strategies incorporating NLP metrics, appending the learning objectives as part of the input, and text splicing to stabilize OOD performance. Our baseline tests show that TFPOS-IDF ML models perform poorly on OOD (Macro F1-score 0.48) compared to BERT (0.55) and LLMs (0.79). Text splicing improved macro F1-score performance of ML and BERT models (0.59 and 0.62, respectively). Appending the learning objectives with the input increased model performance on specific dataset. Model retraining provided the largest improvement across models and datasets. Overall, these findings highlight the trade-off on the use of pre-trained models with novel AI-assisted educational questions and how strategic feature enhancements help address loss in performance.

Conferences, journals, funders, schools, and universities are struggling with a surge of potentially AI-generated submissions from ostensibly human authors, who may not have exercised sufficient human oversight for their manuscripts. In turn, institutions evaluating submissions can no longer reliably credit expertise based solely on authors' names on submitted work. To address this problem, we propose greCAPTCHA, a proctored assessment approach that measures authors' understanding of research manuscripts via the construct of capacity to verify, which we define as the knowledge and reasoning required to critically assess the contents underlying one's contributions to a manuscript. greCAPTCHA generates questions assessing multiple levels of understanding and provides an evaluative report based on authors' responses. Using a prototype implementation, we conduct a user study and semi-structured interviews with $31$ researchers to evaluate greCAPTCHA. Its automated scores predict which papers were or were not authored by study participants with an AUC of $0.90$. Participants reported positive overall experiences with the system and remarked on the appropriate construct validity for author understanding, while also suggesting important changes to be made before deployment. Our results provide initial evidence that greCAPTCHA can assess manuscript-specific understanding under proctored conditions.

Small clinical tabular datasets require interpretable machine learning because deep learning is often impractical and ensemble models can be difficult to inspect. A key pitfall is that statistical significance does not necessarily imply predictive utility. Using data from the Panama Aging Research Initiative--Health Disparities (PARI-HD) cohort (n=165), we implemented a leakage-safe threshold-likelihood Bernoulli/Categorical Naive Bayes (BNB/CNB) classifier. Within every training fold, each continuous predictor was reduced to a supervised chi-square-derived state, while income entered the model through a categorical likelihood. All data-dependent steps were performed within repeated stratified 10-fold cross-validation with 30 repeats. The demographic baseline achieved a ROC-AUC of 0.630 +/- 0.017. I-309 (CCL1) was the dominant incremental feature, increasing AUC by 0.110, with paired DeLong tests yielding p<0.05 in 100% of repeats. In the pre-specified primary analysis, I-309 produced a fixed-partition DeLong p=0.0018, with robustness assessed across 200 random partitions, where the median p-value was 0.0011. Within the exploratory family of 18 candidate markers, I-309 achieved a Benjamini-Hochberg-adjusted q=0.032 on the frozen partition and satisfied q<0.05 in 85% of random partitions, whereas no other marker demonstrated reliable incremental predictive value. Because the fitted model is an inspectable table of thresholds and class-conditional probabilities, these results identify I-309/CCL1 as an interpretable candidate feature for tabular prediction of cognitive impairment, pending external validation.

Objective: Incomplete navigation of anatomy during ureteroscopic kidney stone surgeries can contribute to repeat interventions. While skilled surgeons have lower reintervention rates, there are no objective metrics to quantify scope-navigation performance to evaluate when a trainee becomes skilled. This work aims to recover ureteroscope trajectories from endoscopic video and derive navigation metrics to quantify differences in skill. Methods: We propose RAUL, a reference-assisted reconstruction framework for recovering ureteroscope trajectories from ureteroscope videos only in phantoms. For each phantom, we use a slow, high-quality reference exploration video to generate a reference reconstruction. We localize subsequent exploration videos against this reference. We evaluate localization accuracy against electromagnetically tracked scope pose. We compute navigation metrics from phantom exploration trajectories to compare surgical residents across experience levels. Results: The proposed reference-assisted framework achieves a mean translation root mean square error of $0.5 \pm 0.1$ mm across 9 phantoms. Compared to standard Structure-from-Motion (SfM), the proposed pipeline increases frame-wise localization coverage from $50.5 \pm 14.9\%$ to $86.1 \pm 7.2\%$ of all video frames. The reconstructed trajectories revealed significant differences between high- and low-experience trainees in established navigation metrics. Conclusion: RAUL enables substantially more complete recovery of ureteroscope trajectories from videos compared to standard SfM pipelines, enabling trajectory-based skill assessment without additional tracking equipment. Significance: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first use of video-only recovery of ureteroscope trajectories without external tracking sensors for skill assessment, supporting scalable automated assessment of ureteroscopy navigation skill.

Classroom observations are widely recognized as a key tool for establishing benchmarks of education quality and guiding pedagogical improvement, yet they remain resource-intensive and dependent on trained observers. This study evaluated the feasibility of using a LLM (GPT-5 model) to score teacher-child interactions in early childhood classrooms, benchmarked against human raters. The study analyzed 87 video-recorded observations from 38 classrooms across 30 kindergartens in Hong Kong. Using observation transcripts, the AI model was configured to apply the full Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) framework. AI-rated scores were then compared with human ratings by examining correlations and differences in mean scores of the CLASS domains and dimensions. The results showed greater convergence between AI and raters for the Emotional Support domain and, in particular, the Quality of Feedback dimension, which captures how teachers use feedback to extend children's learning. Greater divergence emerged for interactions that were more procedural or context-dependent, particularly within the Classroom Organization and Instructional Support domains. These findings suggest that transcript-based AI scoring may capture some of the relative variation in teacher-child interactions but cannot yet reproduce calibrated human judgements consistently across the full CLASS framework. AI-assisted observation may therefore be more appropriate as a preliminary screening tool rather than as a replacement for trained observers, providing teachers with evidence for reflection rather than high-stakes evaluation. Future research should examine whether domain-specific training and incorporation of contextual and visual information can improve alignment between AI and human rated scores.

Large Language Models are now common in student assessment, but we know little about how student demographics affect their use. Sometimes, considering student demographics may be necessary -- for example, to improve readability for users with lower educational levels. However, it also risks being a cause of discrimination, e.g., when assigning lower scores to students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. We set up controlled prompts to test 1) explicit demographic effects, where we mention demographic details directly, and 2) implicit effects, where we use conversation history as a demographic signal. We test these settings in three tasks: Automated Essay Scoring, Formative Feedback, and Metalinguistic Question Answering. We test six state-of-the-art LLMs on these tasks. In both explicit and implicit cases, the models pick up on demographic cues and can change their scoring, feedback, and answers accordingly. We find that LLMs frequently adjust the readability of feedback to education levels when these are explicitly mentioned. On the other hand, implicit conditions produce unpredictable biases, such as in question answering, where responses from lower-education levels receive lower sentiment scores. Our results provide clear evidence of demographic sensitivity in LLMs for educational assessment tasks.

Automatic Item Generation (AIG) is pivotal for personalized education, yet guaranteeing the pedagogical value of generated items remains a bottleneck. Existing Item Quality Assessment (IQA) methods typically rely on unscalable manual reviews or shallow stem-based metrics, failing to capture the reasoning process required for mathematical problem-solving. To bridge this gap, this paper proposes Process-based Item Quality Assessment (ProIQA), a process-aware framework for fine-grained quality assessment of math items. We first formulate IQA across three heterogeneous dimensions, including knowledge concepts, difficulty, and disciplinary competencies, under a unified process-aware perspective. Based on this formulation, we construct a process-enhanced IQA resource by augmenting original item data with structured reasoning trees derived from raw solutions. Technically, ProIQA leverages Large Language Modelsto construct hierarchical reasoning trees and employs Graph Neural Networks (GNN) to encode their topological dependencies and procedural semantics. The resulting solving representation is fused with stem semantics through a dual-view (``Stem + Solving'') architecture, enabling comprehensive assessment across learning objectives. Extensive experiments on K12 mathematical datasets show that ProIQA effectively captures process-oriented features, offering a scalable data-driven solution for evaluating AIG outputs in intelligent education systems.

Although MMLU is widely adopted as a benchmark for calibrating general AI capabilities, we psychometrically demonstrate that its aggregate score primarily evaluates a model's factual retrieval capacity rather than its reasoning ability. By calibrating item difficulty for 1,000 open-weights language models over 14,042 MMLU test items using Item Response Theory, we show that evaluating both abilities via a single test is inherently flawed. Difficulty is then regressed on a deterministic, text-extractable framework of structural complexity. Applying a joint Wald test with subject-clustered covariances demonstrates that the MMLU conflates fundamentally separable constructs. The mapping from structural complexity to difficulty is not invariant across the benchmark's STEM and non-STEM partitions. This finding has practical consequences. Aggregate leaderboard ranks track non-STEM accuracy more closely than STEM accuracy, so selecting a Top-50 model on the aggregate for a reasoning-intensive deployment displaces roughly 22% of the STEM-appropriate choices. Furthermore, when controlling for the multiple-choice guessing floor natively inside the response model, we find that higher-ability models continue to degrade more steeply under increased reasoning depth. The MMLU aggregate therefore weights retrieval capacity and reasoning stability unequally, inadvertently favoring models optimized for retrieval. We release our deterministic framework as a reproducible auditing instrument and recommend disaggregated reporting.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are frequently confident, eloquent, and well versed. A natural question arises: do they know what they don't know? To answer this question, we borrow the concept of epistemic honesty and develop a novel metric to systematically evaluate whether an LLM appropriately acknowledges the boundaries of its knowledge. In this work, we introduce the Epistemic Honesty Quotient (EHQ), which reports three observable sub-scores across two operational axes (epistemic restraint and substantive-answer calibration), and construct EHQ-3000, a 3,000-question benchmark spanning Fabricated Entity, Post-Cutoff Event, Hyper-Niche True, and Context-Conditioned Questions. From a frozen registry of 21 model API routes, 15 completed the protocol after endpoint and eligibility checks; 14 entered the confirmatory analysis because severe provider-side truncation made one route's score indeterminate. The study reveals substantial variation across models, including a difference that can not be explained by their capability to extract explicitly available information. Composite EHQ ranges from 0.31 to 0.81 across the analysed panel, despite near-ceiling performance on the document-grounded capability probe. The two restraint criteria overlap strongly under the present category composition, whereas substantive-answer calibration varies across models and does not reliably co-vary with restraint; however, the small panel leaves substantial uncertainty. Thus, EHQ reveals behavioral differences that are not visible to conventional correctness-based assessment, while also showing why dataset composition, provider behavior, and confidence elicitation must remain part of the interpretation.

Contemporary online assessment systems rely primarily on browser lockdown, webcam monitoring, and behavioural analytics, yet remain vulnerable to attacks that extract the assessment content itself through screenshots, screen sharing, optical character recognition, and automated scraping. This paper extends the Multi-dimensional Spatio-Temporal Context Camouflaging Model (MSCCM) within the MARS (Multi-modal Assessment Resilience Suite) by introducing the Multi-Layer Context Camouflaging Theory (MCCT), a mathematical framework that protects rendered assessment content through semantic superposition. Authentic assessment content and synthetically generated camouflage are represented as a unified rendering while remaining recoverable only by legitimate candidates. The framework models the adversarial extraction process through an explicit extraction-channel operator and develops six coupled constructs: the Context Inversion Operator, Contextual Lamination Operator, Separation Channel, Human Readability Functional, Computational Ambiguity Functional, and Context Camouflage Tensor. Computational ambiguity is formulated using conditional entropy, yielding a closed-form expression that quantifies uncertainty during unauthorized extraction, while legitimate recovery is guaranteed through an exact filtering identity. We further establish theoretical properties governing ambiguity, camouflage density, semantic preservation, multi-observation leakage, and temporal multiplexing, and present a rendering algorithm with computational complexity and a pre-registered evaluation protocol. MCCT provides a mathematically rigorous foundation for behaviorally adaptive, accessibility-aware, and computationally resilient digital assessment by securing rendered assessment content while preserving readability for legitimate users.

Systems often need to combine two numerical assessments of the same yes/no question. The appropriate formula depends on what the numbers represent and on how the sources are related. Averaging is correct when one of several alternative interpretations applies; multiplying odds is correct when probability reports are based on conditionally independent evidence and a common prior; and probabilities of alternative successful derivations require their dependence or shared evidence to be taken into account. We state the assumptions behind several common combination rules and derive the corresponding combined probabilities. Two groups of Monte Carlo experiments address different questions. First, controlled generating mechanisms verify that the derived rule recovers the correct probability in the situations for which its assumptions hold. Second, the same mechanisms measure the consequences of using a mismatched rule, using logarithmic score and threshold decisions with different costs. Distinct pooling rules can produce the same binary decision at threshold 1/2 while assigning substantially different probabilities, so binary accuracy alone can conceal important differences. We also give probabilistic interpretations of conflicting-evidence rules and show that, for overlapping derivations, retaining the identities of shared uncertain premises permits direct calculation of the probability that at least one derivation is available. Pairwise combination of proof probabilities loses information when there are three or more derivations.

Scholar assessment plays a fundamental role in faculty recruitment, funding allocation, academic promotion, and talent discovery. Existing scholar assessment methods predominantly rely on bibliometric indicators and reputation proxies, while recent large language model (LLM)-based approaches mainly focus on evaluating individual research papers rather than comprehensively assessing scholars. We argue that scholar assessment should be formulated as an evidence-driven reasoning problem that jointly considers intrinsic research quality and externally verifiable scholarly behavior. To this end, we propose HexEval, an evidence-driven hexagonal framework for multidimensional scholar assessment. HexEval explicitly organizes scholar assessment into two complementary evidence layers. The intrinsic layer evaluates anonymized representative works along three dimensions, namely research rigor, methodological innovation, and scientific contribution, whereas the external layer characterizes scholars through knowledge translation, research coherence, and academic impact using heterogeneous evidence collected from GitHub, Lens, OpenAlex, and other publicly verifiable sources. Instead of producing opaque aggregate scores, HexEval preserves intermediate evidence, dimension-specific rationales, and verification signals throughout the evaluation process, enabling interpretable and auditable scholar profiles. Experiments across all six dimensions show dimension-dependent agreement with human or external reference criteria: structured calibration improves absolute agreement for intrinsic quality, while the external modules recover broad trajectory and ordinal impact signals. These results support evidence-driven reasoning over heterogeneous scholarly evidence as a promising paradigm for auditable AI-assisted scholar assessment, while exposing the coverage and attribution limitations of public scholarly data.

Automatic speaking assessment systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes settings to mark second language (L2) learners' speaking tests, making it critical to show that their scores depend on speaking proficiency rather than irrelevant speaker attributes such as first language (L1) or age. Transformer-based foundation models have improved the accuracy of these L2 speaking graders, but their black-box representations make fairness and interpretability analysis more difficult. Building on prior work that used Concept Activation Vectors (CAVs) to detect bias towards unwanted attributes (`concepts') in feature-based graders, we extend CAV-based analysis to two neural speaking assessment systems: a text-based BERT grader and a speech-and-text multimodal grader based on Whisper. CAVs represent human-interpretable concepts as directions in a model's activation space, allowing us to distinguish between whether a concept is encoded in a model's internal representations and whether it influences the predicted score, the latter quantified using a gradient-based sensitivity metric. Since CAVs rely on linear separability, which is less likely in complex neural embedding spaces, we also investigate whether sparse autoencoders (SAEs) provide cleaner concept directions by learning CAVs in a sparse latent space and mapping them back to activation space. Our analysis shows that concept recoverability depends strongly on the representation and architecture being probed, rather than on the concept alone. Sensitivity to concepts is also architecture-dependent. SAEs make concepts more linearly recoverable, but attenuate the original activation-space sensitivity, especially in low-dimensional layers. These findings highlight the need to distinguish concept recoverability from concept influence when auditing bias in speaking assessment systems.

An adequate diagnostic quality of radiographs is essential for reliable diagnoses and treatment planning. The patient's pose during radiography is one of the most important factors determining the diagnostic quality. Since patient positioning is difficult and not standardized, an automated AI-based approach using depth images to automatically assess the patient's pose before the radiograph has been taken would be helpful. Due to regulatory hurdles, however, it is difficult in practice to acquire the required depth images and corresponding radiographs. In this paper, we present a framework that can generate such training data synthetically from Computed Tomography scans. We further show that by pretraining on our generated synthetic dataset consisting of 3077 image pairs of upper ankle joints, the pose assessment of real upper ankle joints can be improved by up to 11 percentage points.

Institutions increasingly rely on browser lockdown, webcam monitoring, and behavioral analytics to secure high-stakes digital assessments, yet these mechanisms are commonly designed and evaluated independently and often overlook learner accessibility. This paper introduces Behaviorally-Adaptive Visual Diversion (BAVD), a theoretical framework in which a synthetic, non-semantic visual field is composited with assessment content and adaptively modulated according to observed candidate behavior. The underlying assessment content is never altered; only its visual presentation is modified to reduce the usefulness of unauthorized screen capture or screen sharing while remaining minimally intrusive for legitimate candidates. The framework further incorporates an accessibility-aware attenuation mechanism that reduces or suppresses diversion intensity for candidates with approved visual-processing accommodations. We formulate the model using a coupled dynamical-systems representation comprising a Diversion Field Generator, Rendering Tensor, Behavior Tensor, Composite Integrity Functional, and Multi-dimensional Entropy Model, and establish theoretical properties for content fidelity, rendering stability, entropy boundedness, integrity tracking, and closed-loop adaptation stability. The framework explicitly states its threat model, identifies deployment assumptions and limitations, and discusses the trade-off between accessibility and capture resistance. This work provides a mathematically grounded foundation for behaviorally adaptive and accessibility-aware assessment delivery and offers a basis for future empirical validation in trusted digital assessment platforms.

Enterprise compliance management requires rapid adaptation to evolving regulatory frameworks (e.g., DORA, AI RMF, FedRAMP) and tight remediation SLAs. Traditional static orchestrators often fail in hybrid cloud environments where event-driven assessments demand that automation code adapt to runtime context in seconds. This paper presents lessons learned from evaluating six large language models for AI-driven workflow generation in a production enterprise platform, benchmarked across 29 real-world IT automation scenarios, two generation pipeline architectures, and eight independent runs per prompt-model-pipeline configuration (2,784 runs total). Our initial pipeline used monolithic workflow generation, achieving 31.5-82.8% structural success rates (JSON schema validity and correct UI rendering), with most models struggling on complex JSON generation. We developed a redesigned piecewise pipeline that decomposes workflow construction into variable scaffolding, base block assembly, and nested block generation, raising structural success to 74.1-97.8% across all models. We analyze production tradeoffs including cost (USD 0.008-0.20 per workflow), latency (under 50s for interactive use), and model selection. Piecewise decomposition enables smaller models (e.g., mistral-small at 95.7% structural success and USD 0.01 per workflow) to reach production viability, removing dependency on expensive frontier models. While mistral-medium-2505 and gpt-oss-120b achieved the highest structural success (96.1% and 97.8%), mistral-medium-2505 carries a 19x cost premium versus mistral-small. Our deployment lessons highlight the need to separate structural validity from semantic correctness (logical fulfillment of user intent) and provide a solution for model-agnostic, scalable automation in cloud engineering.

Traditional static assessments rely on a subtractive, deficit-based grading model that often penalizes ambition and obscures diagnostic feedback. Conversely, traditional face-to-face oral examinations introduce severe construct-irrelevant variance by exacerbating performative anxiety and the sociological power imbalances inherent to academic hierarchies. This paper presents the theoretical foundation for the "Socratic Test," an automated, computer-mediated conversational assessment. By integrating Dynamic Assessment principles, multimodal workspaces, Bloom's Taxonomy for real-time proctoring, and the SOLO Taxonomy for structural evaluation, the Socratic Test actively maps a student's cognitive boundaries. This paper formalizes the use of graduated scaffolding to quantify the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and details a non-compensatory, additive grading architecture that prioritizes mastery over penalty and human-AI alignment to ensure unprecedented measurement reliability.

This paper introduces a new benchmark test, Medical-Checklist, for assessing medical multimodal models. The recent advancements in multimodal models have demonstrated significant potential in the field of medical vision-language tasks. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that evaluating these models' performance, whether they are applied to natural or medical images, is challenging. The critical question is whether the models can accurately understand an input image while associating it with relevant input text. To address this, Medical-Checklist imposes a binary test on the models: they are given an image and two captions, where one is correct and the other incorrect, and the model must select the correct one. The incorrect caption contains a single medical concept (word or phrase) that is inaccurately substituted from the correct caption. Although the task is simple, this simplicity enables the unified assessment of diverse multimodal models designed and learned on different principles. It also enables us to verify whether models correctly understand a wide range of medical concepts across various medical sub-domains. Medical-Checklist is designed to reduce potential biases in data and to enable evaluation of the models' ability to handle out-of-distribution inputs, which were difficult in existing datasets. When evaluating four state-of-the-art medical multimodal models with Medical-Checklist, it was revealed that despite their excellent performance in specific tasks such as Med-VQA, they may not correctly understand images, suggesting a long journey ahead for clinical application. The dataset and code will be made public upon acceptance.

This full paper in the research-to-practice track presents methods for assessing student teams in tabletop exercises (TTXs). TTXs enable learner teams to prepare for workplace tasks and practice crisis responses, such as resolving cybersecurity incidents. While assessment is essential for determining how well teams achieve learning objectives, the complex, open-ended nature of TTXs often leads to delayed or incomplete feedback. TTX learning platforms can record teams' actions and communication; yet, leveraging these data to assess performance is underexplored. To address this gap, we compared two post-TTX team assessment methods -- clustering and large language models (LLMs) -- using an original dataset from 81 participants across two countries. We evaluated these methods against instructor-assigned scores based on standardized rubrics. Clustering grouped teams that approached TTX tasks similarly, enabling instructors to deliver faster, targeted feedback to teams within a cluster. This method was valid and reliable, with low computational requirements. LLMs used the standardized rubrics to assess teams' communication. While GPT-4o frequently disagreed with instructor scores, GPT-5.2 demonstrated considerably lower error. The researched methods have been integrated into INJECT, an open-source TTX learning platform, to support scalability and teaching practice. To encourage community adoption, we publicly share all datasets, software tools, and a full-fledged TTX scenario.

Teaching videos are becoming a major medium for education, creating a growing need for scalable evaluation of their pedagogical quality. Existing automatic judges do not fully address this setting because teaching quality depends on multimodal evidence and should be evaluated with respect to the intended learner rather than as a universal property. We present EduPanel, a rubric-grounded, learner-conditioned LLM judge that decomposes evaluation across specialized agents to produce interpretable assessments for different aspects of teaching quality. Across expert studies, architecture ablations, and learner-persona analyses, EduPanel achieves reliability comparable to a median human expert. In expert evaluation, its feedback improves scoring accuracy (MAE 0.87 to 0.73), while experts remain able to detect unreliable outputs (AUC = 0.77) instead of accepting them blindly. These results suggest that EduPanel can serve as effective assistants for educational evaluation rather than replacements for human experts.

Automated essay scoring (AES) enables scalable assessment and timely feedback but remains challenged by transformer input-length limitations, which can cause information loss when processing long essays. This study proposes a generative AI-assisted summarization framework to improve long-form essay representation while maintaining scoring reliability. Using the ASAP 2.0 dataset, we generate controlled-length summaries with three GPT-5 variants (GPT-5, GPT-5 mini, and GPT-5 nano) and use them as inputs for downstream AES models. To preserve original writing signals, handcrafted linguistic features extracted from full essays are integrated with summary representations to form a hybrid framework. The approach is evaluated in terms of scoring performance, summarization quality, and computational cost. Scoring reliability is measured using quadratic weighted kappa (QWK), while summary quality is assessed through lexical overlap, semantic similarity, information retention, and redundancy metrics. Results show that GPT-5 mini achieves the highest agreement with human ratings, whereas GPT-5 produces the strongest summarization quality. Summary quality decreases for higher-scoring essays, indicating that more complex writing is more difficult to compress without information loss. These findings reveal trade-offs among model capacity, summary fidelity, cost efficiency, and preservation of educational constructs. This study provides an initial controlled evaluation of GPT-based summarization for AES and identifies important baselines and ablation studies required for future generalization. Overall, generative AI summarization offers a promising approach for scalable writing assessment while requiring careful validation of information preservation and fairness.

As generative AI (GenAI) becomes increasingly embedded in undergraduate academic writing, how students rely on these tools, rather than simply whether they use them, has become a central question for learning, academic integrity, and educational equity. Existing measures of reliance were developed inductively, focused on discrete problem-solving tasks, and validated mainly with homogeneous samples. This study developed and validated the GenAI Reliance Types Scale (GenAI-RTS), a 20-item instrument measuring four theoretically derived types of GenAI reliance: Strategic, Instrumental, Dependent, and Dialogic. Validation followed the multisource framework of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, drawing on a survey of 382 undergraduates at a U.S. Minority-Serving Institution and interviews with 14 purposively sampled students. Confirmatory factor analyses of six competing models supported a five-factor structure in which Strategic Reliance comprises two facets, Deliberate Use and Critical Evaluation, alongside Instrumental, Dependent, and Dialogic factors (CFI = .92, RMSEA = .08; DWLS CFI = .98, RMSEA = .07). Subscale reliability was acceptable to good (omega = .75-.88), and scalar measurement invariance held across gender, first-generation status, and STEM/non-STEM majors, to our knowledge the first such evidence for a GenAI reliance instrument. Rasch analysis indicated that a five-point response format would improve category functioning. Strategic reliance was positively associated with AI literacy, and the reliance types differentiated students across multiple writing process and outcome variables. The GenAI-RTS offers researchers and educators a theoretically grounded, psychometrically validated instrument for identifying undergraduate reliance profiles and supporting research, assessment, and AI literacy intervention.

High-stakes English proficiency tests treat standardized, unaided performance as evidence for score interpretations about academic English proficiency. This interpretation remains meaningful, but as target language use domains increasingly involve generative AI, the extrapolation from unaided test performance to academic communicative readiness becomes less self-evident. This conceptual validity argument reframes AI as a score-interpretation problem in high-stakes language testing, not only an operational issue of scoring, feedback, security, or misconduct. Synthesizing current literature in three uneven layers, the paper shows that most work treats AI as assessment infrastructure, while far less theorizes its implications for construct validity and extrapolation warrants. It defines AI-mediated construct drift as the misalignment that arises when communicative abilities required in the target domain change through AI mediation while test constructs remain anchored to an unaided-performance model. It proposes bounded AI mediation as a validity-oriented design principle: a standardized condition in which all test takers access the same institutionally controlled AI assistant, with predefined assistance boundaries, logged interactions, and tasks that distinguish comprehension support from answer generation. The paper argues that score interpretations should be narrowed and supplemented when used to support claims about AI-mediated academic communication.

The clinical and communication skills of medical students are commonly assessed through Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs), which consist of brief scenario-driven simulations of doctor-patient interactions. However, training is often limited by the low availability of human standardized patients, motivating the development of realistic virtual patients (VPs). To address this gap, we introduce a French OSCE dialogue dataset comprising 240 student-patient training interactions. We build upon it a controllable LLM-based pipeline to generate synthetic OSCE dialogues. The pipeline integrates modular components, such as retrieval-based grounding and a reflection loop, to ensure patient fidelity, coherence, and realism. Additionally, we propose a multi-level evaluation framework assessing patient simulation quality, student performance, and linguistic quality, using an LLM-as-a-Judge approach. Experiments suggest that controllability modules generally improve patient fidelity and student evaluation consistency. Finally, we implement an interactive prototype in which students can practice with a VP and receive automatic feedback.

Rating systems such as Elo serve as the gold standard for matchmaking in competitive chess. However, they inherently suffer from response lag due to their exclusive reliance on match outcomes, neglecting the granular quality of gameplay. Nevertheless, incorporating move-by-move information into rating adjustments presents a significant challenge given the substantial noise and the vastness of the game-state space. To address this, we propose the Drift-Diffusion-Enhanced Elo Rating System (DD-Elo), a novel skill assessment framework inspired by the drift diffusion model (DDM) from cognitive neuroscience. By modeling skill expression as a decision-making process, our model integrates move-level data to capture rapid skill fluctuations. We provide a rigorous mathematical derivation proving that DD-Elo maintains a bounded deviation from the traditional Elo system, ensuring theoretical alignment. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DD-Elo adapts to skill changes faster than Elo. Our findings suggest that DD-Elo offers an explainable, highly responsive, and backward-compatible solution for chess rating ecosystems. The implementation code is publicly available at https://github.com/Aquila-zhou1/DD-Elo .

Automated homework assessment depends not only on recognizing student answers, but also on accurately locating where each answer and each intermediate reasoning step appears in noisy, multi-page handwritten work. This paper addresses the missing evaluation setting of page-aware, two-level answer-region grounding: given a sequence of homework page images, a model must localize complete answer regions and their ordered step-level subregions. We introduce HG-Bench, a benchmark of 500 human-annotated K-12 homework samples curated from a 1,489,278-image source pool, with question-level and step-level boxes linked by a hierarchical containment constraint. HG-Bench is paired with a page-aware evaluation protocol that separately measures complete-answer localization (FA) and step-level decomposition (FSm), revealing whether models truly ground the spatial structure of student reasoning rather than merely parse visible text. Across frontier closed-source APIs and competitive open-weight VLMs, no zero-shot system exceeds 55.22% on FA or 48.22% on FSm, while a GLM-4.6V 9B reference model fine-tuned on ~10k in-domain examples reaches 74.97/72.26. These results identify step-level handwritten grounding as a concrete capability gap and provide a reproducible benchmark, evaluation protocol, and trained reference point for future work on automated homework assessment.

Multi-agent document assessment for retrieval-augmented generation is computationally expensive, driving practitioners toward smaller, deployable models whose assessment mechanisms remain poorly understood. We conduct a controlled study of training-free interventions on 7B-9B instruction-tuned models across diverse QA benchmarks, revealing a sharp dichotomy in how models benefit from assessment. For weaker baselines, the dominant mechanism is per-document isolation. Astoundingly, assessment-free isolation matches full multi-agent assessment, demonstrating that resolving multi-document context confusion, rather than scoring quality, drives outsized gains of up to 50 percentage points. Conversely, for strong baselines where scoring quality matters, we introduce Reasoning-Score Coupling, a label-free perturbation probe that classifies scoring behavior. Integrating these findings, we propose MADARA, a model-adaptive routing architecture. Crucially, MADARA's diagnostic thresholds derived from a single pilot model generalize zero-shot to four unseen model families, providing a robust, lightweight pipeline to eliminate computational overhead.

Standardized assessment of uterine MRI remains challenging due to anatomical variability, observer dependence, and the lack of workflow-integrated automated analysis tools. This work presents Female-RHINO: (R)eproductive (H)ealth (I)maging A(N)alysis T(O)ol, a real-time AI-assisted framework for automated quantitative uterine MRI analysis and structured reporting during image acquisition. We present an end-to-end system that integrates inline communication with the MRI scanner and deep learning-based analysis to derive quantitative uterine biomarkers from sagittal T2-weighted pelvic MRI. The framework combines segmentation and anatomical landmark detection models trained and evaluated on more than 500 multi-center datasets spanning diverse protocols, vendors, and patient populations. It performs volumetry, detects and quantifies common incidental findings such as fibroids and Nabothian cysts, and extracts six anatomical landmarks for biometric assessment. Results are compiled into a structured clinician-oriented report with integrated visualizations, without manual interaction. Evaluation on independent retrospective and prospective cohorts demonstrated robust performance across varying acquisition settings. Mean Dice similarity coefficients were 0.82 for the uterus and 0.80 for fibroids, with lower but consistent agreement for Nabothian cysts. Landmark detection achieved a mean radial error of 3.7 mm. End-to-end processing was completed in under 70 seconds, enabling availability of results during the ongoing scan. Prospective deployment yielded immediate, standardized, and reproducible analyses supported by inter-observer agreement. The proposed system enables real-time scanner-integrated AI for automated uterine MRI analysis and reporting, with potential to improve standardization, efficiency, and clinical workflow in pelvic imaging.

Generative artificial intelligence(GenAI) is reshaping learning in higher education, with particularly pronounced implications for the humanities and social sciences(HSS), where learning outcomes are commonly expressed through written and interpretive forms that align closely with GenAI's capabilities. Yet, systematic evidence on the educational impacts of GenAI on HSS students remains limited. Addressing this gap, this study draws on a large-scale survey of HSS students in China to examine its role in academic development. Guided by relevant learning theories, this study focuses on four dimensions: patterns of use, effects on learning processes and academic performance, challenges associated with GenAI use, and preferred approaches to curricular integration. We found that more than half perceived enhanced learning motivation, independent thinking and creativity, although a substantial minority reported little change or even decline. Comparatively, a notably larger majority reported academic performance gains, although these gains may partly reflect limitations in conventional assessment practices. The study identifies variations in perceived learning and performance improvements among students with differing durations of GenAI experience, along with observable disciplinary differences and modest gender differences. While an overwhelming majority valued the importance of ethical considerations, only slightly more than half were satisfied with privacy protection. Limited accuracy and overreliance emerged as the most pressing concerns reported by students. Students favored partial or optional curricular integration supported by practice-oriented training, and widely recognized GenAI's significance for their future professional development. Grounded in student perspectives, this study offers evidence-based recommendations for the responsible and pedagogically meaningful integration of GenAI

Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT), as a key technology for personalized education, aims to accurately assess examinee proficiency by retrieving exercises dynamically matching current ability estimates. However, existing CAT research is constrained by limitations of static offline data and isolated component optimization. Restricted by partial labels in offline logs, researchers degrade the dynamic assessment process into static sequence prediction. Current research focuses on isolated perspectives, e.g., selection or diagnosis, neglecting the overall CAT interaction process. To address this, we propose AgentCAT, a Large Language Model-based multi-agent simulation system, to construct a high-fidelity benchmarking environment for dynamic testing. This framework comprises three modules: (1) The examinee agent with memory retrieval and Chain-of-Thought reasoning simulates responses based on cognitive profiles; (2) The selection agent uses coarse-to-fine bucketing and knowledge graph exploration to balance local difficulty and global coverage; (3) The supervisor uses dual-auditing and robust update to ensure convergence and validity. To validate the framework, we evaluated on two real-world datasets across three dimensions: macro-level ability convergence, micro-level interaction logic, and data sparsity resilience. Results show AgentCAT achieves effective ability estimation, and its selection strategy balances difficulty adaptation and instructional coherence, aligning with human pedagogical intuition.

Student-generated drawings are widely used in science education to assess learners' conceptual understanding in modeling-based tasks aligned with the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). However, scoring such drawings requires expert human judgment to interpret complex visual representations, making large-scale assessment costly to implement and sustain in classroom settings. In this work, we study automated scoring of student-generated scientific drawings using a vision-based model. We evaluate a Vision Transformer (ViT) with parameter-efficient adaptation and propose a confidence-aware scoring framework that derives response-level confidence from test-time predictive distributions. This confidence signal enables selective automation by scoring high-confidence responses automatically while deferring uncertain cases for human review. Experiments on six NGSS-aligned middle school assessment items show that the proposed approach improves scoring reliability while supporting a practical trade-off between automated coverage and scoring risk, highlighting the value of confidence-aware methods for trustworthy educational assessment.

While some individuals possess a natural talent for drawing, mastering this skill requires dedicated training and practice. Determining one's skill in the art of drawing requires proper comprehensive assessment. In this paper, we propose a method to measure drawing skill by by matching the hand-drawn image with the original template. Existing techniques often involve complex processes. However, advancements in computer vision allow us to train computers to perform these comparisons at a human-like level, thereby resolving the tedious and overwhelming traditional process. Using computer vision applications, determining image similarity involves identifying the level of similarities in an image with a reference image. We have implemented and analyzed the SIFT feature and Siamese network to measure image similarity. Our results indicate that it is feasible to assess art skill levels. Through feature analysis, we found that SIFT-based key point matching provides a more effective means of detecting drawing skills.

Item discrimination is a fundamental psychometric property of educational assessment, which measures whether an item meaningfully distinguishes students with higher proficiency from students with lower proficiency. While various existing works have explored whether large language models (LLMs) can estimate item difficulty, it remains unclear whether they can capture item discrimination. In this work, we evaluate 42 proprietary and open-weight LLMs in zero-shot settings using two complementary approaches: direct discrimination prediction, where models explicitly estimate an item's discrimination value from its content, and response-based Classical Test Theory (CTT) calibration, where LLM answers are treated as synthetic student responses to compute discrimination scores. Our results show that direct prediction yields weak alignment with human-calibrated discrimination: the best-performing model reaches only a Spearman correlation of 0.152. Response-based CTT calibration provides a stronger but still limited signal, with the all-persona synthetic respondent pool reaching a Spearman correlation of 0.241. These findings highlight item discrimination as an open challenge for LLM-based psychometric evaluation: current LLMs contain non-random discrimination-relevant signal, but they do not yet reliably capture how assessment items distinguish human students.

AI-native course assessments in senior computer science courses and related fields should grade students by \emph{AI-resilient skill}: the ability to achieve outcomes beyond a strong AI baseline. Such assessments should allow students to use AI freely, while reducing the extent to which greater private AI budget or more intensive AI use, by itself, becomes a grading advantage. This paper proposes a minimal formal framework for this goal. The framework specifies a real task, an executable evaluator, a declared AI-native Pareto frontier, and a grading rule based on Pareto surplus. The central claim is simple: Pareto surplus provides a measurable, protocol-relative certificate that a submitted artifact achieves a tradeoff not already supplied by the declared AI baseline, and grading by this surplus is AI-resilient with respect to that baseline. Interpreting surplus as evidence of student skill requires the surrounding assessment protocol--for example, design reports, ablations, prompt traces, oral checks, or reproducibility explanations--but the grading certificate itself is behavioral and executable. The framework is then extended to practical complications, including self-improving AI loops, budget neutrality, server-mediated feedback, and prompt-based red teaming. As a concrete instantiation, we describe an AI-resilient approximate-membership assignment centered on Bloom filters for COMP 480/580 at Rice University, designed to test whether students can improve beyond AI-generated implementations.

Based on a questionnaire of 100 higher-education students, predominantly from engineering-related fields, and a critical review of recent literature, this chapter examines how students use and perceive Large Language Models (LLMs) in engineering education. Students primarily value LLMs for writing support, conceptual clarification, coding assistance, and brainstorming, while simultaneously expressing concerns about inaccuracies, bias, overreliance, academic integrity, and the burden of verification. Through an analysis of two dominant metaphors, namely LLMs as an "oracle" and as a "tutor," the chapter shows how these systems cultivate expectations of authority, expertise, and personalized learning that often exceed their actual capabilities. The chapter further argues that students' attachment to the promises of efficiency and personalized support reflects a form of "cruel optimism," where the perceived benefits of LLMs often depend on the very skills, vigilance, and expertise that students are still developing. Overall, the chapter argues for a purpose-driven and context-sensitive approach to AI integration in engineering education, emphasizing critical AI literacy, reflective assessment design, pedagogical caution, and consideration of broader ethical and environmental impacts.

Large language models are increasingly proposed as educational tutors, yet stronger task-solving ability does not necessarily imply stronger learning support. Motivated by recent calls to measure the social impact of NLP systems in practice, we study whether public LLM tutoring benchmarks distinguish learning-supportive behavior from mere answer production. We propose a lightweight diagnostic based on the gap between solving-oriented and pedagogy-oriented benchmark performance. Using public MathTutorBench leaderboard results, we show that these dimensions are only partially aligned: across eight publicly reported models, the correlation between solving and pedagogy composites is 0.421, and several models shift meaningfully in rank when evaluation moves from solving to pedagogy. We then analyze the public TutorBench sample and show that agency-relevant behaviors are explicitly encoded in benchmark rubrics, especially in active-learning settings that reward guiding questions, calibrated hints, and non-disclosive scaffolding. Together, these findings suggest that educational-impact evaluation should not treat task success as a sufficient proxy for learning support. We argue that public tutoring benchmarks can better support positive-impact evaluation by reporting solving-oriented and pedagogy-oriented scores separately and by making disclosure-sensitive, student-agency-preserving criteria more explicit.

Many undergraduate students in Computer Science (CS) and Software Engineering (SWE) struggle to identify suitable career paths, particularly when their academic performance, abilities, and interests do not fully align. To address this issue, this study proposes an AI-driven Student Assessment and Career Prediction System that integrates a Career Guidance Expert (CGE) system with a Web-Based Student Assessment (WBSA) platform. Within the integrated framework, CGE enhances personalized career recommendations using AI while also assisting students after graduation in identifying suitable jobs, research domains, and higher study opportunities aligned with their skills and interests. The WBSA platform further strengthens interaction between students and faculty through assessments, personalized tasks, mentorship activities, and a secure real-time chat application. The CGE system employs a Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) model trained on real-world academic and extracurricular data collected using the snowball sampling method from the students of universities, achieving a validation accuracy of 94.71% in predicting personalized career paths. A pre-survey was conducted across universities to evaluate the proposed model before deployment. The WBSA system was developed as a modern web application using technologies such as Node.js, Next.js, and PostgreSQL to ensure scalability, responsiveness, and secure data management. The overall system is supported by a secure cloud-based infrastructure, the platform provides reliable performance while assisting graduates to select suitable career path in IT sector. In addition, a post-survey involving both students and faculty was conducted to gather feedback and further improve the overall effectiveness and usability of the system.

People are increasingly using AI for creative tasks such as writing. While adoption continues to grow, this form of use risks undermining individual creativity locally and reducing the heterogeneity of creative output at scale. In response, we introduce the Semantic Repulsion Technique (SRT) and evaluate it both computationally and through a study with 16 participants who regularly use AI for creative tasks. Our computational assessment reveals that SRT increases semantic diversity by 85--167% while reducing consensus phrases by 43--95% across task modes. In the user study, SRT outputs received higher usefulness ($p = .019$, $W = .208$) and coherence ratings ( $p = .006$, $W = .260$); 68.8% of participants were willing to use SRT-Strong for multiple tasks versus 18.8% for baselines. Originality and coherence ratings were positively correlated across all systems ($ρ= +.40$ to $+.67$), suggesting that divergence need not compromise readability. Taken together, these preliminary findings can inform the design of AI systems that aim to support everyday creativity without contributing to homogenization.

Automatic Question Difficulty Estimation (AQDE) holds growing promise for educational assessment because it has the potential to yield difficulty estimates that are competitive with expert judgment, while helping reduce the time and financial burden associated with pilot administrations and scaling to digital testing contexts. Prior AQDE studies report mixed evidence on whether adding distractors as additional text to the question stem and the correct key consistently improves difficulty prediction. We hypothesize that the effectiveness of distractor information depends on its structural representation, and that explicitly modeling distractors as separate components improves difficulty estimation over baselines that omit this information. To address this, we designed controlled architectures that model MCQ components as distinct inputs to isolate the contribution of distractor content and order. Specifically, we represented distractors by encoding each distractor as its own text input and aggregating their representations either with order-aware concatenation (with positional tags) or with an order-invariant summation. We evaluated these architectures using two Chilean datasets (Natural and Social Sciences, 2016-2020; 4,114 multiple-choice questions). Compared to a simpler model that only used the question stem and the key, our best distractor-aware architecture achieved higher predictive performance, reaching R^2 = 0.83 for Natural Sciences and R^2 = 0.71 for Social Sciences items. An order-invariant variant achieved nearly the same accuracy with approximately half as many parameters, offering a favorable accuracy-efficiency trade-off. These results show that structural information (especially distractor content) drives gains in predictive accuracy, supporting the development of efficient, structure-aware models that are computationally viable for large-scale educational applications.

This paper examines the limitations of fully digital and partially digital e-assessment approaches in summative examinations in higher education. The analysis focuses on the didactic narrowing caused by closed question formats and on organizational, technical, and legal constraints that become particularly relevant in large student cohorts. As an alternative, the paper proposes a hybrid e-assessment approach that retains paper-based, problem-oriented examination tasks while enabling semi-automated grading. Assessment-relevant intermediate results are encoded in a structured answer format, entered by students by hand, and subsequently captured from table fields. The central technical bottleneck is reliable recognition of handwritten characters under realistic examination conditions. Recent vision-capable large language models, combined with a two-pass validation principle and comparison against a solution key, can reduce misclassifications and thereby improve the validity, fairness, and scalability of summative assessment.

Universities have responded to generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in noticeably different ways, both internationally and within Spain. So far, the dominant reaction has been defensive, this is, most institutions frame the debate around AI detection, plagiarism, academic integrity and a presumed drop in student effort, prioritizing basic training for academic staff over students. Other group of pioneering universities is doing the opposite, pursuing deeper adoption, and assuming that any policy built on prevention or sanction will not hold. This paper sides with that second view. Obsessing about detection is a dead end, since generated text is increasingly hard to distinguish from human writing, and detectors still misfire too often to be trusted. What universities need instead is a coordinated effort to set clear, course-by-course rules for GenAI use, redesign assessment toward authentic and interdisciplinary assessment that fosters critical thinking and learner autonomy, and build a serious AI-literacy programme that treats students as critical co-creators rather than passive users. The challenge, though, is not only pedagogical. Adoption at university scale also raises organisational, technical, operational, legal and economic questions that have to be solved together. In this context, the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) is developing a strategic and sustainable AI policy and adoption framework structured around six dimensions, in which AI functions as an enabler of student autonomy and pedagogical innovation rather than as a threat to be policed.

When prompting language models for psychometric assessment, researchers assume that the responses reflect the injected persona and the meaning of the survey item. We test this premise using a diagnostic design that crosses five semantically distinct baseline personas with five semantically equivalent variants of each of four prompt components (persona wording, task instruction, item wording, option symbol). Measuring the 1-Wasserstein distance between the resulting response distributions and partitioning the variation among the five components allows for the separation of target effects from prompt artifacts. We apply the framework to 13 open-weight small language models (0.6B to 14B) on the Big Five Inventory and the Short Dark Triad. We find that in most models, the task instruction and option symbol displace response distributions further than paraphrasing the persona description or the item itself. For a substantial share of items, the artifact share of explained variation exceeds 50%; non-semantic changes of the prompt account for more response variation than the baseline personas. Our framework lets researchers quantify these prompt artifacts before interpreting psychometric output.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders in childhood, and its diagnosis relies on assessments combining clinician judgment with standardized rating scales and reports from parents and teachers. While structured instruments such as the Conners' Teacher Rating Scale-Revised Short Form (CTRS-R:S) quantify ADHD-related behaviors, teachers also provide open-ended narratives that may contain complementary signals not captured by structured assessments. However, it remains unclear to what extent teacher narratives encode signals overlooked by rating scales. In this study, we analyze de-identified Turkish teacher evaluation forms collected during clinical ADHD assessments, including both CTRS-R:S scores and open-ended teacher narratives. We compare predictive signals from structured scores and narrative text and identify cases where structured assessments fail to clearly distinguish ADHD from non-ADHD students while narrative-based models capture distinct behavioral patterns. Notably, these cases show minimal overlap with those missed by the narrative model, suggesting that structured and narrative information encode complementary signals. To interpret these differences, we apply a large language model (LLM)-assisted theme discovery pipeline that reveals distinct attention, behavioral, and family-related patterns, highlighting the potential of natural language processing (NLP) to uncover clinically relevant signals from teacher narratives and to complement traditional ADHD screening tools.

Traditional Video Quality Assessment (VQA) focuses narrowly on aesthetic fidelity, overlooking the complex social dynamics that define quality in User-Generated Content (UGC). In this work, we propose a paradigm shift from signal-centric metrics to human-centric resonance assessment. We introduce CASTER (Community-Aware Assessment of Social Textual Engagement and Resonance), a new task that evaluates whether a UGC item achieves positive community resonance based on its multimodal attributes rather than visual quality alone. To address this, we present MEDEA (Multimodal Engagement-Driven Evaluation Architecture), which introduces a novel Social Chain-of-Thought (Social-CoT) mechanism. Unlike traditional logical CoT, Social-CoT performs multimodal perspective-taking, instantiating diverse viewer personas to simulate collective cognitive and emotional reactions (i.e., the "community mind") before deriving a quality judgment. MEDEA is trained via a two-stage approach involving supervised fine-tuning and process-supervised reinforcement learning with Social Alignment Reward to ensure reasoning paths are grounded in authentic human social cognition. To support this task, we release CASTER-Bench, a comprehensive human-annotated benchmark covering diverse UGC categories. Experiments demonstrate that MEDEA significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines on CASTER-Bench while providing interpretable and empathetic reasoning paths that align with real community feedback.

Educational platforms often predict student performance from prior interactions, but the assessment content itself also varies in linguistic and visual complexity. This paper studies whether lightweight content features extracted from CourseKata chapter-review questions improve prediction of end-of-chapter quiz scores beyond a student's average prior exercise performance. The study combines 2023 CourseKata student response data with chapter-level text features from review-question wording and image features from textbook visuals. Across 4,742 student-chapter observations from 562 class-student IDs, adding content features improves student-grouped five-fold quiz prediction performance by 9.1% relative to a prior-performance baseline. In leave-chapter-out validation, text features reduce prediction error relative to the baseline, while image-containing models have higher error. This paper suggests that a context-aware model adds useful signal about the text and visual features of questions to better predict student quiz performance compared with using past student performance alone.

LLM-based automated scoring approaches near-human performance, but scaling to new tasks remains bottlenecked by the per-item human configuration of upstream stages such as rubric construction. Human experts bypass this bottleneck through evaluation heuristics developed over extensive practice. We ask whether LLMs can learn similar heuristics directly from scoring experience, and formalize this as the concept of assessment skills: item-independent natural-language procedural knowledge that guides LLMs through specific stages of the scoring workflow. Focusing on rubric construction as a first instantiation, we propose an iterative framework that decomposes a skill into a fixed scaffold and learnable item-agnostic rules, refining the rules through LLM-driven diagnosis of scoring errors and validation-gated selection. The framework requires no expert-written rubric. On all ten ASAP-SAS items, optimized skills substantially improve LLM-based scoring and frequently surpass the dataset-provided expert rubric. Cross-item transfer experiments further reveal that learned skills capture both generalizable and item-specific patterns.

Bridge inspection in Japan requires mandatory visual assessments every five years, yet qualitative damage ratings (levels a-e) assigned by different engineers exhibit significant inter-rater variability -- a critical barrier to consistent infrastructure management. The aging of skilled engineers further threatens inspection capacity. This paper presents a methodology for automating bridge damage understanding and repair priority scoring using fine-tuned Vision-Language Models (VLMs). We fine-tune LLaVA-1.5-7B with QLoRA on up to 4,000 paired bridge damage images and inspection text records, then evaluate on a fixed test set of 800 images. The model outputs natural language descriptions identifying structural members and damage patterns, from which a rule-based scoring engine calculates a five-level repair priority index. A progressive training study (1k/2k/3k/4k samples) reveals that 2k training samples achieve near-optimal validation loss in only 2.9 hours of training; beyond 2k, validation loss improves by no more than 0.2% per doubling of training samples, exhibiting clear diminishing returns. Furthermore, semantic similarity on the held-out test set peaks at 3k (0.6909) and degrades at 4k (0.6739), indicating that quality-curated mid-scale data outperforms larger but noisier corpora. Inference optimization combining torch.compile() and batch processing (batch_size=8) achieves 10.06 seconds per image -- a 70.2% reduction over the unoptimized baseline. Our approach contributes to data governance in bridge inspection, reduces inter-rater variability, and provides AI-assisted triage to augment expert engineers in inspection workflows. Furthermore, we introduce a two-stage Quality Guard using a fine-tuned Swallow-8B SLM to reject low-quality VLM outputs before priority scoring, preventing spurious scores from damaged or unrecognised images.

Achieving high levels of surgical skill through effective training is essential for optimal patient outcomes. Automated, data-driven skill assessment holds significant potential to improve surgical training. While machine learning-based methods are increasingly popular for assessing skills in minimally invasive surgery, their application to open surgery remains limited. We present the results of a dedicated MICCAI challenge designed to benchmark and advance vision-based skill assessment in open surgery. The challenge dataset comprises videos of an open suturing training task recorded with a static GoPro camera in a dry-lab setting, with instrument trajectories available in addition to the primary video modality. The OSS Challenge was hosted over two consecutive years, comprising two and three independent tasks, respectively: (1) classifying skill level into four classes, (2) predicting the full Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills across eight categories, and (3) tracking hands and surgical tools. Participants submitted diverse solutions including deep learning-based video models, tracking-driven methods, and hybrid approaches. General-purpose spatiotemporal video models consistently achieved the strongest performance, though conceptually diverse approaches reached competitive levels when well-executed. Predicting fine-grained OSATS scores remains challenging but benefits substantially from increased training data. Keypoint tracking proves difficult given frequent occlusions and out-of-frame instances, limiting current applicability for motion-based skill analysis. This work benchmarks innovative and diverse solutions for surgical skill assessment, highlighting both the promise and current limitations of video-based evaluation in open surgery and identifying critical directions for advancing automated skill assessment toward clinical impact.

How much have students' ordinary learning processes shifted in response to generative AI, and how does that affect their durable learning outcomes? Self-report surveys show little change, while small-scale behavioral studies report widespread AI use without the scale or duration to measure learning consequences. We address both questions using a ten-year panel of $3.2$ million ALEKS learning interactions for investigating time-on-task, complemented by ALEKS PPL placement-assessment data for examining proctoring and learning outcomes, with a quasi-experimental design exploiting variation in tasks that are more susceptible to AI (text-based word problems) and less susceptible to AI (interactive graph-based problems). Learning time on AI-susceptible problems declines $2.8\%$ per quarter among college students after ChatGPT's release, cumulating to $26.9\%$ over eleven quarters; high-schoolers show $31.3\%$, middle-schoolers $9.0\%$, and Grade 5 students no detectable change. Among college students, the post-ChatGPT divergence vanishes entirely under proctoring, ruling out broad efficiency gains as the likely explanation. Logistic fixed-effects models on randomly assigned proctored retention items yield a $25\%$ cumulative decline in odds of correct response; the same estimator on non-proctored assessment produces a large opposite-signed increase -- inconsistent with any platform, cohort, or curriculum explanation. These results are among the first large-scale behavioral and outcome evidence that generative AI has altered how students study and the knowledge they build -- the population-level indicator of \emph{cognitive surrender}, with direct implications for educational research, assessment governance, and AI policy.

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.

Generative AI increasingly supports educational design tasks, e.g., through Large Language Models (LLMs), demonstrating the capability to design assessment questions that are aligned with pedagogical frameworks (e.g., Bloom's taxonomy). However, they often rely on subjective or limited evaluation methods; focus primarily on proprietary models; or rarely systematically examine generation, evaluation, or deployment constraints in real educational settings. Meanwhile, Small Language Models (SLMs) have emerged as local alternatives that better address privacy and resource limitations; yet their effectiveness for assessment tasks remains underexplored. To address this gap, we systematically compare LLMs and SLMs for assessment question design; evaluate generation quality across Bloom's taxonomy levels using reproducible, pedagogically grounded metrics; and further assess model-based judging against expert-informed evaluation by analyzing reliability and agreement patterns. Results show that SLMs achieve competitive performance across key pedagogically motivated quality dimensions while enabling local, privacy-sensitive deployment. However, model-based evaluations also exhibit systematic inconsistencies and bias relative to expert ratings. These findings provide evidence to posit language models as bounded assistants in assessment workflows; underscore the necessity of Human-in-the-Loop; and advance the automated educational question generation field by examining quality, reliability, and deployment-aware trade-offs.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed imaging inverse problems, from medical diagnostics to Earth observation. Yet deep neural networks can produce hallucinations, realistic-looking but incorrect details, undermining their reliability, especially when ground truth data is unavailable. We develop a theoretical framework showing that such hallucinations are not merely artifacts of particular models, but can arise from the ill-posed nature of the inverse problem itself. We derive necessary and sufficient conditions for hallucinations, together with computable bounds on their magnitude that depend only on the forward model. Building on this theory, we introduce algorithms to: (1) estimate the minimum hallucination magnitude achievable by any reconstruction model for a given input; (2) assess the faithfulness of reconstructed details by a given reconstruction model. Experiments across three imaging tasks demonstrate that our approach applies broadly, including to modern generative models, and provides a principled way to quantify and evaluate AI hallucinations.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in social science as scalable measurement tools for converting unstructured text into variables that can enter standard empirical designs. Measurement validity demands more than high average accuracy, which requires well calibrated confidence that faithfully reflects the empirical probability of each measurement being correct. This paper studies the model miscalibration in LLM-based social science measurement. We begin with a case study on FOMC and show that confidence based filtering can change downstream regression estimates when LLM confidence is miscalibrated. We then audit calibration across 14 social science constructs covering both proprietary models, including GPT-5-mini, DeepSeek-V3.2, and open source models. Across tasks and model families, reported confidence is poorly aligned with tolerance-based correctness. As a simple mitigation, we propose a soft label distillation pipeline for calibrating Bert with LLM. The method converts an LLM score and its verbalized confidence into a soft target distribution, then trains a smaller discriminative classifier on encoder models for these targets. Averaged across datasets, this approach reduces ECE by 43.2% and Brier by 34.0%. These results suggest that LLM-based social science pipelines should treat calibration as part of measurement validity, rather than as an optional post-processing concern.

Authentic school examinations provide a high-validity test bed for evaluating multimodal large language models (MLLMs), yet benchmarks grounded in Japanese K-12 assessments remain scarce. We present a multimodal dataset constructed from Japan's National Assessment of Academic Ability, comprising officially released middle-school items in Science, Mathematics, and Japanese Language. Unlike existing benchmarks based on synthetic or curated data, our dataset preserves real exam layouts, diagrams, and Japanese educational text, together with nationwide aggregated student response distributions (N $\approx$ 900{,}000). These features enable direct comparison between human and model performance under a unified evaluation framework. We benchmark recent multimodal LLMs using exact-match accuracy and character-level F1 for open-ended responses, observing substantial variation across subjects and strong sensitivity to visual reasoning demands. Human evaluation and LLM-as-judge analyses further assess the reliability of automatic scoring. Our dataset establishes a reproducible, human-grounded benchmark for multimodal educational reasoning and supports future research on evaluation, feedback generation, and explainable AI in authentic assessment contexts. Our dataset is available at: https://github.com/KyosukeTakami/gakucho-benchmark

Auto-regressive decoding in Large Language Models (LLMs) is inherently memory-bound: every generation step requires loading the model weights and intermediate results from memory (e.g., High-Bandwidth Memory (HBM) for GPU servers), making throughput bottlenecked by memory bandwidth rather than compute. Speculative decoding addresses this by enabling parallel verification of multiple draft tokens, effectively amortizing the cost of each target-model call. However, existing speculative decoding methods are designed under the assumption that HBM is sufficiently large to hold both the target model and an auxiliary draft model simultaneously -- an assumption that breaks down on memory-constrained devices such as edge platforms with limited DRAM. We analyze the inference bottleneck in this memory-limited regime and propose CATS, a self-speculative decoding framework that conducts cascaded verification and correction based on the memory budget and parameter offloading patterns on memory-limited devices. This design maximizes token acceptance rate and end-to-end speedup while keeping the peak memory footprint on the device equal to that of the target model alone. We evaluate CATS on different models across five benchmarks on real edge devices. CATS can achieve a wall-clock speedup of up to 5.08x with no degradation in generation quality, outperforming the SOTA method by up to 1.45x under edge memory constraints.

Multiple-choice reasoning benchmarks face dual challenges: rapid saturation from advancing models and data contamination that undermines static evaluations. Ad-hoc hardening methods (paraphrasing, perturbation) attempt to increase difficulty but sacrifice logical validity for surface complexity, falling short to challenge advanced reasoning models. We present LogiHard, a formal framework that deterministically transforms 0-order selection into 2-order logical judgment, which significantly increases the thinking overhead and reasoning steps. The framework integrates Item Response Theory (IRT) for computerized adaptive testing (CAT), enabling precise difficulty control with fewer questions than static benchmarks. We instantiate LogiHard-2k, a logical reasoning dataset constructed by cognitively ranking high-stakes examination questions via 9-dimensional analysis of model thinking traces, followed by combinatorial transformation of high-difficulty items. Evaluation across twelve state-of-the-art models reveals an accuracy degradation ranging from 31% to 56% on combinatorially hardened questions. LLMs suffer from the multi-select failure and early exit bias, which are not shared by human testees. Zero-shot transfer to MMLU demonstrates 47% accuracy degradation (89.84% to 42.86%), confirming applicability across domains with provable validity preservation. The consistent aggregate degeneration is domain-agnostic and stems not from knowledge deficits but from a combinatorial reasoning gap, reflecting a training-induced completeness-verification deficit.

Agentic AI architectures augment LLMs with external tools, unlocking strong capabilities. However, tool use is not always beneficial; some calls may be redundant or even harmful. Effective tool use, therefore, hinges on a core LLM decision: whether to call or not call a tool when performing a task. This decision is particularly challenging for web search tools, where the benefits of external information depend on the model's internal knowledge and its ability to integrate potentially noisy tool responses. We introduce a principled framework inspired by decision-making theory to evaluate web search tool-use decisions along three key factors: necessity, utility, and affordability. Our analysis combines two complementary lenses: a normative perspective that infers true need and utility from an optimal allocation of tool calls, and a descriptive perspective that infers the model's self-perceived need and utility from their observed behaviors. We evaluate six open and one closed-source frontier models under two harnesses, one conditioning on only the current turn and its search results, the other on the full execution traces, across four web-search tools and three tasks. In every setting, we find that a model's perceived need and utility are frequently misaligned with the true need and utility. Building on this framework, we train lightweight estimators of need and utility from the models' hidden states. These estimators drive simple controllers that improve decision quality and yield stronger task performance than the self-perceived baseline for most of the open-source models.

As Competency-Based Education (CBE) is gaining traction around the world, the shift from marks-based assessment to qualitative competency mapping is a manual challenge for educators. This paper tackles the bottleneck issue by suggesting a "Human-in-the-Loop" benchmarking framework to assess the effectiveness of multiple LLMs in automating secondary-level mathematics assessment. Based on the Grade 10 Optional Mathematics curriculum in Nepal, we created a multi-dimensional rubric for four topics and four cross-cutting competencies: Comprehension, Knowledge, Operational Fluency, and Behavior and Correlation. The multi-provider ensemble, consisted of open-weight models -- Eagle (Llama 3.1-8B) and Orion (Llama 3.3-70B) -- and proprietary frontier models Nova (Gemini 2.5 Flash) and Lyra (Gemini 3 Pro), was benchmarked against a ground truth defined by two senior mathematics faculty members (kappa_w = 0.8652). The findings show a marked "Architecture-compatibility gap". Although the Gemini-based Mixture-of-Experts (Sparse MoE) models achieved "Fair Agreement" (kappa_w ~ 0.38), the larger Orion (70B) model exhibited "No Agreement" (kappa_w = -0.0261), suggesting that architectural compliance with instruction constraints outweighs the scale of raw parameters in rubric-constrained tasks. We conclude that while LLMs are not yet suitable for autonomous certification, they provide high-value assistive support for preliminary evidence extraction within a "Human-in-the-Loop" framework.

Usability testing with experts and potential users can assess the effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction of graphical user interfaces (GUIs) but doing so remains a costly and time-intensive process. Prior work has used computer use agents (CUAs) and other generative agents that can simulate user interactions and preference, but we show that agents still struggle to provide accurate usability assessments. In this work, we present a novel machine learning method that operationalizes a computational definition of usability to train CUAs to assess GUI usability by i) prioritizing important interaction flows, ii) executing them through human-like interactions, and iii) predicting a learned numerical usability score. We train a computer use agent, uxCUA, with our algorithm on a large-scale dataset of fully interactive user interfaces (UIs) paired with usability labels and human preferences. We show that uxCUA outperforms larger models in accurate usability assessments and produces realistic critiques of both synthetic and real UIs. More broadly, our work aims to build a principled, data-driven foundation for automated usability assessment in HCI.

Improving the Theory of Mind (ToM) capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) is crucial for effective social interactions between these AI models and humans. However, the existing benchmarks often measure ToM capability improvement through story-reading, multiple-choice questions from a third-person perspective, while ignoring the first-person, dynamic, and open-ended nature of human-AI (HAI) interactions. To directly examine how ToM improvement techniques benefit HAI interactions, we first proposed the new paradigm of interactive ToM evaluation with both perspective and metric shifts. Next, following the paradigm, we conducted a systematic study of four representative ToM enhancement techniques using both four real-world datasets and a user study, covering both goal-oriented tasks (e.g., coding, math) and experience-oriented tasks (e.g., counseling). Our findings reveal that improvements on static benchmarks do not always translate to better performance in dynamic HAI interactions. This paper offers critical insights into ToM evaluation, showing the necessity of interaction-based assessments in developing next-generation, socially aware LLMs for HAI symbiosis.