Explainability and Certification of AI-Generated Educational Assessments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.09622v1
• Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 11:33:58 GMT
• Title: Explainability and Certification of AI-Generated Educational Assessments
• Abstract summary: This chapter proposes a comprehensive framework for explainability and certification of AI-generated assessment items.<n>A structured certification metadata schema is introduced to capture provenance, alignment predictions, reviewer actions, and ethical indicators.<n>A proof-of-concept study on 500 AI-generated computer science questions demonstrates the framework's feasibility.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in educational assessment has created new opportunities for scalable item creation, personalized feedback, and efficient formative evaluation. However, despite advances in taxonomy alignment and automated question generation, the absence of transparent, explainable, and certifiable mechanisms limits institutional and accreditation-level acceptance. This chapter proposes a comprehensive framework for explainability and certification of AI-generated assessment items, combining self-rationalization, attribution-based analysis, and post-hoc verification to produce interpretable cognitive-alignment evidence grounded in Bloom's and SOLO taxonomies. A structured certification metadata schema is introduced to capture provenance, alignment predictions, reviewer actions, and ethical indicators, enabling audit-ready documentation consistent with emerging governance requirements. A traffic-light certification workflow operationalizes these signals by distinguishing auto-certifiable items from those requiring human review or rejection. A proof-of-concept study on 500 AI-generated computer science questions demonstrates the framework's feasibility, showing improved transparency, reduced instructor workload, and enhanced auditability. The chapter concludes by outlining ethical implications, policy considerations, and directions for future research, positioning explainability and certification as essential components of trustworthy, accreditation-ready AI assessment systems.

Related papers

• AI Slop and Hallucinations in Vulnerability Assessment: A Survey on Reasoning Failures and Trustworthy Mitigation [48.55515767840701]
  "AI slop" is artifacts, hallucinated vulnerabilities, plausible but incorrect patches, and semantically repackaged bug reports.<n>This paper surveys the empirical evidence, identifies a unifying mechanism, and traces a path toward trustworthy triage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-26T11:48:38Z)
• Leveraging Large Language Models for Trustworthiness Assessment of Web Applications [13.909850314037653]
  This study presents an empirical methodology to automate the trustworthiness assessment of web applications by leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We propose an extension of a hierarchical Quality Model (QM) based on the Logic Score of Preference (LSP)<n> Experimental results indicate that excessive structural context can introduce noise, whereas rule-based instructional prompting improves assessment reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-24T23:33:54Z)
• Position: Science of AI Evaluation Requires Item-level Benchmark Data [42.82377343454172]
  We argue that item-level AI benchmark data is essential for establishing a rigorous science of AI evaluation.<n>To catalyze community-wide adoption, we introduce OpenEval, a growing repository of item-level benchmark data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T04:31:30Z)
• AI Deployment Authorisation: A Global Standard for Machine-Readable Governance of High-Risk Artificial Intelligence [0.0]
  This paper introduces the AI Deployment Authorisation Score (ADAS), a machine-readable regulatory framework that evaluates AI systems.<n>ADAS produces a cryptographically verifiable deployment certificate that regulators, insurers, and infrastructure operators can consume as a license to operate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-11T18:14:20Z)
• Rethinking Cybersecurity Ontology Classification and Evaluation: Towards a Credibility-Centered Framework [0.19703625025720695]
  This paper analyzes the proliferation of cybersecurity, arguing that this surge cannot be explained solely by technical shortcomings but also by a credibility deficit.<n>We propose a revised framework for assessing credibility, introducing indicators such as institutional support, academic recognition, day-to-day practitioner validation, and industrial adoption.<n>We then apply this framework to a concrete use: the Franco-Luxembourgish research project ANCILE, which illustrates how a credibility-aware evaluation can reshape selection for operational contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-01T13:25:05Z)
• Safe and Certifiable AI Systems: Concepts, Challenges, and Lessons Learned [45.44933002008943]
  This white paper presents the T"UV AUSTRIA Trusted AI framework.<n>It is an end-to-end audit catalog and methodology for assessing and certifying machine learning systems.<n>Building on three pillars - Secure Software Development, Functional Requirements, and Ethics & Data Privacy - it translates the high-level obligations of the EU AI Act into specific, testable criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T17:52:08Z)
• A Conceptual Framework for AI Capability Evaluations [0.0]
  We propose a conceptual framework for analyzing AI capability evaluations.<n>It offers a structured, descriptive approach that systematizes the analysis of widely used methods and terminology.<n>It also enables researchers to identify methodological weaknesses, assists practitioners in designing evaluations, and provides policymakers with a tool to scrutinize, compare, and navigate complex evaluation landscapes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T00:19:27Z)
• Towards Reliable Forgetting: A Survey on Machine Unlearning Verification [26.88376128769619]
  This paper presents the first structured survey of machine unlearning verification methods.<n>We propose a taxonomy that organizes current techniques into two principal categories -- behavioral verification and parametric verification.<n>We examine their underlying assumptions, strengths, and limitations, and identify potential vulnerabilities in practical deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-18T03:33:59Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• A Unified Framework for Evaluating the Effectiveness and Enhancing the Transparency of Explainable AI Methods in Real-World Applications [2.0681376988193843]
  This study introduces a single evaluation framework for XAI.<n>It uses both numbers and user feedback to check if the explanations are correct, easy to understand, fair, complete, and reliable.<n>We show the value of this framework through case studies in healthcare, finance, farming, and self-driving systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-05T05:30:10Z)
• Explainable Authorship Identification in Cultural Heritage Applications: Analysis of a New Perspective [48.031678295495574]
  We explore the applicability of existing general-purpose eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) techniques to AId. In particular, we assess the relative merits of three different types of XAI techniques on three different AId tasks. Our analysis shows that, while these techniques make important first steps towards explainable Authorship Identification, more work remains to be done.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T20:51:15Z)
• Modelling Assessment Rubrics through Bayesian Networks: a Pragmatic Approach [40.06500618820166]
  This paper presents an approach to deriving a learner model directly from an assessment rubric. We illustrate how the approach can be applied to automatize the human assessment of an activity developed for testing computational thinking skills.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-07T10:09:12Z)
• An interdisciplinary conceptual study of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for helping benefit-risk assessment practices: Towards a comprehensive qualification matrix of AI programs and devices (pre-print 2020) [55.41644538483948]
  This paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of existing concepts coming from different disciplines tackling the notion of intelligence. The aim is to identify shared notions or discrepancies to consider for qualifying AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-07T12:01:31Z)

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.