Effort Matters in Score-Based Admissions: How Retaking and Aggregation Shape Test Scores

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.25974v1
• Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 16:54:18 GMT
• Title: Effort Matters in Score-Based Admissions: How Retaking and Aggregation Shape Test Scores
• Abstract summary: We develop a strategic framework where students allocate effort in response to different scoring policies.<n>We propose three algorithmic interventions which either modify how scores from multiple attempts are combined, or apply a post-hoc correction to observed scores.
• Score: 3.6649607582905794
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Observed standardized test scores are the result of an endogenous process: students strategically allocate effort across multiple retake attempts to improve their outcomes. Because students differ in their ability to make these investments, the interaction between applicant strategy and institutional scoring rules---such as the widely used Single-Sitting and Superscoring policies---can disparately distort observed scores. We develop a strategic framework where students allocate effort in response to different scoring policies. We show that Superscoring---the practice of combining the best section scores across attempts---introduces systematic score inflation through order-statistic selection over noise draws. This degrades signal accuracy and amplifies wealth-based disparities by disproportionately rewarding applicants who can afford repeated testing. Conversely, Single-Sitting---which keeps the best overall score rather than section-level scores---preserves signal fidelity but excludes high-ability students who lack the resources to prepare for all subjects simultaneously. Neither rule uniformly dominates; instead, they force a structural trade-off between statistical precision and fair outcomes. Finally, to address this, we propose three algorithmic interventions which either modify how scores from multiple attempts are combined, or apply a post-hoc correction to observed scores. Using simulations calibrated to 2025 College Board data, we compare standard scoring rules against these proposed interventions.

Related papers

• Rubric Dropout: A Simple Way to Mitigate Reward Hacking in Rubric-as-Reward RL [11.857468467125505]
  We find that the two scores diverge during training.<n>A judge with a fixed bias would shift the gold curve by a constant, not send it down while the training score rises.<n>We propose Dropout, a one-line fix borrowed from neuron dropout.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T05:29:21Z)
• Reference-Free Rating of LLM Responses via Latent Information [53.463883683503106]
  We study the common practice of asking a judge model to assign Likert-scale scores to free-text responses.<n>We then propose and evaluate Latent Judges, which derive scalar ratings from internal model signals.<n>Across a broad suite of pairwise and single-rating benchmarks, latent methods match or surpass standard prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T12:15:52Z)
• Bidirectional Decoding: Improving Action Chunking via Guided Test-Time Sampling [51.38330727868982]
  We show how action chunking impacts the divergence between a learner and a demonstrator.<n>We propose Bidirectional Decoding (BID), a test-time inference algorithm that bridges action chunking with closed-loop adaptation.<n>Our method boosts the performance of two state-of-the-art generative policies across seven simulation benchmarks and two real-world tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-30T15:39:34Z)
• Algorithms for College Admissions Decision Support: Impacts of Policy Change and Inherent Variability [18.289154814012996]
  We show that removing race data from a developed applicant ranking algorithm reduces the diversity of the top-ranked pool without meaningfully increasing the academic merit of that pool. We measure the impact of policy change on individuals by comparing the arbitrariness in applicant rank attributable to policy change to the arbitrariness attributable to randomness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T14:59:30Z)
• A Tale of HodgeRank and Spectral Method: Target Attack Against Rank Aggregation Is the Fixed Point of Adversarial Game [153.74942025516853]
  The intrinsic vulnerability of the rank aggregation methods is not well studied in the literature. In this paper, we focus on the purposeful adversary who desires to designate the aggregated results by modifying the pairwise data. The effectiveness of the suggested target attack strategies is demonstrated by a series of toy simulations and several real-world data experiments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-13T05:59:02Z)
• Integrating Rankings into Quantized Scores in Peer Review [61.27794774537103]
  In peer review, reviewers are usually asked to provide scores for the papers. To mitigate this issue, conferences have started to ask reviewers to additionally provide a ranking of the papers they have reviewed. There are no standard procedure for using this ranking information and Area Chairs may use it in different ways. We take a principled approach to integrate the ranking information into the scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-05T19:39:13Z)
• The SAME score: Improved cosine based bias score for word embeddings [49.75878234192369]
  We introduce SAME, a novel bias score for semantic bias in embeddings. We show that SAME is capable of measuring semantic bias and identify potential causes for social bias in downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-28T09:28:13Z)
• Intersectional Affirmative Action Policies for Top-k Candidates Selection [3.4961413413444817]
  We study the problem of selecting the top-k candidates from a pool of applicants, where each candidate is associated with a score indicating his/her aptitude. We consider a situation in which some groups of candidates experience historical and present disadvantage that makes their chances of being accepted much lower than other groups. We propose two algorithms to solve this problem, analyze them, and evaluate them experimentally using a dataset of university application scores and admissions to bachelor degrees in an OECD country.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-29T12:27:18Z)
• Towards Model-Agnostic Post-Hoc Adjustment for Balancing Ranking Fairness and Algorithm Utility [54.179859639868646]
  Bipartite ranking aims to learn a scoring function that ranks positive individuals higher than negative ones from labeled data. There have been rising concerns on whether the learned scoring function can cause systematic disparity across different protected groups. We propose a model post-processing framework for balancing them in the bipartite ranking scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-15T10:08:39Z)
• Uncertainty-aware Score Distribution Learning for Action Quality Assessment [91.05846506274881]
  We propose an uncertainty-aware score distribution learning (USDL) approach for action quality assessment (AQA) Specifically, we regard an action as an instance associated with a score distribution, which describes the probability of different evaluated scores. Under the circumstance where fine-grained score labels are available, we devise a multi-path uncertainty-aware score distributions learning (MUSDL) method to explore the disentangled components of a score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-13T15:41:29Z)

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.