Modernizing Ground Truth: Four Shifts Toward Improving Reliability and Validity in AI in Education

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.29141v1
• Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2026 01:47:01 GMT
• Title: Modernizing Ground Truth: Four Shifts Toward Improving Reliability and Validity in AI in Education
• Abstract summary: Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is now widespread in education, yet the efficacy of GenAI systems remains constrained by the quality and interpretation of the labeled data used to train and evaluate them.<n>We argue that many educational assessment and practice support settings include challenges, such as high-inference constructs and skewed label distributions.<n>We propose four practical shifts for establishing ground truth: (1) treat IRR as a diagnostic signal to localize disagreement and refine constructs rather than a mechanical acceptance threshold (e.g., k > 0.8); (2) require transparent reporting of rater expertise, codebook development, reconciliation procedures, and segmentation
• Score: 3.275822752813799
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is now widespread in education, yet the efficacy of GenAI systems remains constrained by the quality and interpretation of the labeled data used to train and evaluate them. Studies commonly report inter-rater reliability (IRR), often summarized by a single coefficient such as Cohen's kappa (k), as a gatekeeper to ``ground truth.'' We argue that many educational assessment and practice support settings include challenges, such as high-inference constructs, skewed label distributions, and temporally segmented multimodal data, which yield potential misapplication or misinterpretation of threshold-based heuristics for IRR. The growing use of large language models as annotators and judges introduces risks such as automation bias and circular validation. We propose four practical shifts for establishing ground truth: (1) treat IRR as a diagnostic signal to localize disagreement and refine constructs rather than a mechanical acceptance threshold (e.g., k > 0.8); (2) require transparent reporting of rater expertise, codebook development, reconciliation procedures, and segmentation rules; (3) mitigate risks in LLM annotation through bias audits and verification workflows; and (4) complement agreement statistics with validity and effectiveness evidence for the intended use, including uncertainty-aware labeling (e.g., assigning different labels to the same item to capture nuance), criterion-related checks (e.g., predictive tests to check if labels forecast the intended outcome), and close-the-loop evaluations of whether systems trained on these labels improve learning beyond a reasonable control. We illustrate these shifts through case studies of multimodal tutoring data and provide actionable recommendations toward strengthening the evidence base of labeled AIED datasets.

Related papers

• When Self-Belief Misleads: Active Label Acquisition for Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards [49.25249414962884]
  We propose Reinforcement Learning with Active Verifiable Rewards (RLAVR)<n>RLAVR actively acquires ground-truth labels for a small set of selected samples and integrates them with pseudo-labels.<n>Building on this, we introduce Correction-Aware Reliability Estimation for RLAVR (CARE)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-25T13:55:12Z)
• Guideline-Grounded Evidence Accumulation for High-Stakes Agent Verification [60.18369393468405]
  Existing verifiers usually underperform owing to a lack of domain knowledge and limited calibration.<n>GLEAN compiles expert-curated protocols into trajectory-informed, well-calibrated correctness signals.<n>We empirically validate GLEAN with agentic clinical diagnosis across three diseases from the MIMIC-IV dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-03T09:36:43Z)
• The Emergence of Lab-Driven Alignment Signatures: A Psychometric Framework for Auditing Latent Bias and Compounding Risk in Generative AI [0.0]
  This paper introduces a novel auditing framework to quantify latent trait estimation under ordinal uncertainty.<n>The research audits nine leading models across dimensions including Optimization Bias, Sycophancy, and Status-Quo Legitimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T06:56:01Z)
• PRIME: A Process-Outcome Alignment Benchmark for Verifiable Reasoning in Mathematics and Engineering [71.15346406323827]
  We introduce PRIME, a benchmark for evaluating verifiers on Process-Outcome Alignment verification.<n>We find that current verifiers frequently fail to detect derivation flaws.<n>We propose a process-aware RLVR training paradigm utilizing verifiers selected via PRIME.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T04:45:01Z)
• VIRO: Robust and Efficient Neuro-Symbolic Reasoning with Verification for Referring Expression Comprehension [51.76841625486355]
  Referring Expression (REC) aims to localize the image region corresponding to a natural-language query.<n>Recent neuro-symbolic REC approaches leverage large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs) to perform compositional reasoning.<n>We introduce VIRO, a neuro-symbolic framework that embeds lightweight operator-level verifiers within reasoning steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T07:21:19Z)
• CleverCatch: A Knowledge-Guided Weak Supervision Model for Fraud Detection [0.36944296923226316]
  CleverCatch is a knowledge-guided weak supervision model designed to detect fraudulent prescription behaviors.<n>Our approach integrates structured domain expertise into a neural architecture that aligns rules and data samples within a shared embedding space.<n> Experiments on the large-scale real-world dataset demonstrate that CleverCatch outperforms four state-of-the-art anomaly detection baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-15T06:49:31Z)
• Beyond Agreement: Rethinking Ground Truth in Educational AI Annotation [1.8434042562191815]
  We argue that overreliance on human inter-rater reliability (IRR) as a gatekeeper for annotation quality hampers progress in classifying data.<n>We highlight five examples of complementary evaluation methods, such as multi-label annotation schemes, expert-based approaches, and close-the-loop validity.<n>We call on the field to rethink annotation quality and ground truth--prioritizing validity and educational impact over consensus alone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-31T20:05:26Z)
• Stochastically Dominant Peer Prediction [11.183872292320824]
  We propose dominantally dominant (SD-truthfulness) as a stronger guarantee of truthful reporting.<n>A simple solution -- rounding into binary lotteries -- can enforce SD-truthfulness, but often degrades sensitivity.<n>We demonstrate how a more careful application of rounding can better preserve sensitivity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-02T21:07:24Z)
• Incentivizing Truthful Language Models via Peer Elicitation Games [13.262897952363147]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong generative capabilities but remain prone to inconsistencies and hallucinations.<n>We introduce Peer Elicitation Games (PEG), a training-free, game-theoretic framework for aligning LLMs through a peer elicitation mechanism involving a generator and multiple discriminators instantiated from distinct base models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T18:16:58Z)
• Learning with Complementary Labels Revisited: The Selected-Completely-at-Random Setting Is More Practical [66.57396042747706]
  Complementary-label learning is a weakly supervised learning problem. We propose a consistent approach that does not rely on the uniform distribution assumption. We find that complementary-label learning can be expressed as a set of negative-unlabeled binary classification problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-27T02:59:17Z)
• Binary Classification with Confidence Difference [100.08818204756093]
  This paper delves into a novel weakly supervised binary classification problem called confidence-difference (ConfDiff) classification. We propose a risk-consistent approach to tackle this problem and show that the estimation error bound the optimal convergence rate. We also introduce a risk correction approach to mitigate overfitting problems, whose consistency and convergence rate are also proven.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T11:44:50Z)
• Robust Representation Learning for Unreliable Partial Label Learning [86.909511808373]
  Partial Label Learning (PLL) is a type of weakly supervised learning where each training instance is assigned a set of candidate labels, but only one label is the ground-truth. This is known as Unreliable Partial Label Learning (UPLL) that introduces an additional complexity due to the inherent unreliability and ambiguity of partial labels. We propose the Unreliability-Robust Representation Learning framework (URRL) that leverages unreliability-robust contrastive learning to help the model fortify against unreliable partial labels effectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-31T13:37:28Z)

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.