Date
Publisher
arXiv
A key ethical challenge in Automated Essay Scoring (AES) is ensuring that
scores are only released when they meet high reliability standards. Confidence
modelling addresses this by assigning a reliability estimate measure, in the
form of a confidence score, to each automated score. In this study, we frame
confidence estimation as a classification task: predicting whether an
AES-generated score correctly places a candidate in the appropriate CEFR level.
While this is a binary decision, we leverage the inherent granularity of the
scoring domain in two ways. First, we reformulate the task as an n-ary
classification problem using score binning. Second, we introduce a set of novel
Kernel Weighted Ordinal Categorical Cross Entropy (KWOCCE) loss functions that
incorporate the ordinal structure of CEFR labels. Our best-performing model
achieves an F1 score of 0.97, and enables the system to release 47% of scores
with 100% CEFR agreement and 99% with at least 95% CEFR agreement -compared to
approximately 92% (approx.) CEFR agreement from the standalone AES model where
we release all AM predicted scores.
Study at a glance
- Question: Can automated essay scoring systems accurately predict whether their assigned grades are reliable enough to release?
- Setting and data: Not stated in the abstract
- Method: Develops and tests computational models to predict whether automated essay scores are reliable (classification task)
Why it matters
A key ethical challenge in Automated Essay Scoring is ensuring that scores are only released when they meet high reliability standards. Confidence modelling addresses this by assigning a reliability estimate to each automated score.
Key findings
- In CEFR essay assessment, a confidence-checking model enabled an automated system to release 47% of essay scores with 100% level agreement.
- The confidence model allowed the system to release 99% of essay scores with at least 95% CEFR agreement.
- Releasing all scores from the standalone automated essay scoring model yielded approximately 92% agreement with CEFR levels.
Summary drafted with AI from the paper’s abstract and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.
What is the application?
Who is the user?
Who age?
Why use AI?
Study design
