Leveraging AI Graders for Missing Score Imputation to Achieve Accurate Ability Estimation in Constructed-Response Tests

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.20119v1
• Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 04:17:57 GMT
• Title: Leveraging AI Graders for Missing Score Imputation to Achieve Accurate Ability Estimation in Constructed-Response Tests
• Authors: Masaki Uto, Yuma Ito,
• Abstract summary: Item response theory (IRT) provides a promising solution by enabling the estimation of ability from incomplete score data.<n>The accuracy of ability estimation declines as the proportion of missing scores increases.<n>This study proposes a novel method for imputing missing scores by leveraging automated scoring technologies.
• Score: 0.6445605125467574
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating the abilities of learners is a fundamental objective in the field of education. In particular, there is an increasing need to assess higher-order abilities such as expressive skills and logical thinking. Constructed-response tests such as short-answer and essay-based questions have become widely used as a method to meet this demand. Although these tests are effective, they require substantial manual grading, making them both labor-intensive and costly. Item response theory (IRT) provides a promising solution by enabling the estimation of ability from incomplete score data, where human raters grade only a subset of answers provided by learners across multiple test items. However, the accuracy of ability estimation declines as the proportion of missing scores increases. Although data augmentation techniques for imputing missing scores have been explored in order to address this limitation, they often struggle with inaccuracy for sparse or heterogeneous data. To overcome these challenges, this study proposes a novel method for imputing missing scores by leveraging automated scoring technologies for accurate IRT-based ability estimation. The proposed method achieves high accuracy in ability estimation while markedly reducing manual grading workload.

Related papers

• Improving annotator selection in Active Learning using a mood and fatigue-aware Recommender System [0.0]
  This study centers on overcoming the challenge of selecting the best annotators for each query in Active Learning (AL)<n>AL recognizes the challenges related to cost and time when acquiring labeled data, and decreases the number of labeled data needed.<n>Most strategies for query-annotator pairs do not consider internal factors that affect productivity, such as mood, attention, motivation, and fatigue levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-31T17:41:30Z)
• Reliable and Efficient Amortized Model-based Evaluation [57.6469531082784]
  The average score across a wide range of benchmarks provides a signal that helps guide the use of language models in practice.<n>A popular attempt to lower the cost is to compute the average score on a subset of the benchmark.<n>This approach often renders an unreliable measure of LM performance because the average score is often confounded with the difficulty of the questions in the benchmark subset.<n>We train a model that predicts question difficulty from its content, enabling a reliable measurement at a fraction of the cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-17T16:15:02Z)
• General Scales Unlock AI Evaluation with Explanatory and Predictive Power [57.7995945974989]
  benchmarking has guided progress in AI, but it has offered limited explanatory and predictive power for general-purpose AI systems.<n>We introduce general scales for AI evaluation that can explain what common AI benchmarks really measure.<n>Our fully-automated methodology builds on 18 newly-crafted rubrics that place instance demands on general scales that do not saturate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-09T01:13:56Z)
• Uncertainty Quantification in Retrieval Augmented Question Answering [57.05827081638329]
  We propose to quantify the uncertainty of a QA model via estimating the utility of the passages it is provided with.<n>We train a lightweight neural model to predict passage utility for a target QA model and show that while simple information theoretic metrics can predict answer correctness up to a certain extent, our approach efficiently approximates or outperforms more expensive sampling-based methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T11:24:52Z)
• Wrong Answers Can Also Be Useful: PlausibleQA -- A Large-Scale QA Dataset with Answer Plausibility Scores [16.434748534272014]
  PlausibleQA is a dataset of 10,000 questions and 100,000 candidate answers annotated with plausibility scores and justifications.<n>We show that plausibility-aware approaches are effective for Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) and QARA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-22T21:14:18Z)
• Chatbots im Schulunterricht: Wir testen das Fobizz-Tool zur automatischen Bewertung von Hausaufgaben [0.0]
  This study examines the AI-powered grading tool "AI Grading Assistant" by the German company Fobizz.<n>The tool's numerical grades and qualitative feedback are often random and do not improve even when its suggestions are incorporated.<n>The study critiques the broader trend of adopting AI as a quick fix for systemic problems in education.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-09T16:50:02Z)
• Legitimate ground-truth-free metrics for deep uncertainty classification scoring [3.9599054392856483]
  The use of Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) methods in production remains limited.<n>This limitation is exacerbated by the challenge of validating UQ methods in absence of UQ ground truth.<n>This paper investigates such metrics and proves that they are theoretically well-behaved and actually tied to some uncertainty ground truth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-30T14:14:32Z)
• Active Learning to Guide Labeling Efforts for Question Difficulty Estimation [1.0514231683620516]
  Transformer-based neural networks achieve state-of-the-art performance, primarily through supervised methods but with an isolated study in unsupervised learning. This work bridges the research gap by exploring active learning for QDE, a supervised human-in-the-loop approach. Experiments demonstrate that active learning with PowerVariance acquisition achieves a performance close to fully supervised models after labeling only 10% of the training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-14T02:02:42Z)
• Towards Effective Evaluations and Comparisons for LLM Unlearning Methods [97.2995389188179]
  This paper seeks to refine the evaluation of machine unlearning for large language models.<n>It addresses two key challenges -- the robustness of evaluation metrics and the trade-offs between competing goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T14:41:00Z)
• Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning Beyond Accuracy [50.09931172314218]
  We introduce ReasonEval, a new methodology for evaluating the quality of reasoning steps.<n>We show that ReasonEval consistently outperforms baseline methods in the meta-evaluation datasets.<n>We observe that ReasonEval can play a significant role in data selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T17:18:04Z)
• Evaluating Open-QA Evaluation [29.43815593419996]
  This study focuses on the evaluation of the Open Question Answering (Open-QA) task, which can directly estimate the factuality of large language models (LLMs) We introduce a new task, Evaluating QA Evaluation (QA-Eval) and the corresponding dataset EVOUNA, designed to assess the accuracy of AI-generated answers in relation to standard answers within Open-QA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-21T10:40:55Z)
• ROSCOE: A Suite of Metrics for Scoring Step-by-Step Reasoning [63.77667876176978]
  Large language models show improved downstream task interpretability when prompted to generate step-by-step reasoning to justify their final answers. These reasoning steps greatly improve model interpretability and verification, but objectively studying their correctness is difficult. We present ROS, a suite of interpretable, unsupervised automatic scores that improve and extend previous text generation evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-15T15:52:39Z)
• A New Score for Adaptive Tests in Bayesian and Credal Networks [64.80185026979883]
  A test is adaptive when its sequence and number of questions is dynamically tuned on the basis of the estimated skills of the taker. We present an alternative family of scores, based on the mode of the posterior probabilities, and hence easier to explain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-25T20:35:42Z)
• Fast Uncertainty Quantification for Deep Object Pose Estimation [91.09217713805337]
  Deep learning-based object pose estimators are often unreliable and overconfident. In this work, we propose a simple, efficient, and plug-and-play UQ method for 6-DoF object pose estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-16T06:51:55Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.