Evaluating Nonuniform Dependability Across Response Conditions: A Conditional Generalizability Framework Illustrated in Automated Essay Scoring
Summary
This paper proposes a conditional generalizability framework to evaluate nonuniform dependability across response conditions in automated essay scoring.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 07/15/26, 04:21 AM
# Evaluating Nonuniform Dependability Across Response Conditions: A Conditional Generalizability Framework Illustrated in Automated Essay Scoring Source: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.11981](https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.11981) Bibliographic Tools ## Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Code, Data, Media ## Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article Demos ## Demos Related Papers ## Recommenders and Search Tools About arXivLabs ## arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website\. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy\. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them\. Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community?[**Learn more about arXivLabs**](https://info.arxiv.org/labs/index.html)\.
Similar Articles
Deployment Decision Reliability: A Generalizability-Theory Framework for Sizing Long-Horizon Agent Evaluations
This paper applies Generalizability Theory to agent benchmarks, showing leaderboards rank specialization rather than capability, and proposes a framework (DDR) for sizing reliable deployment evaluations.
Invocation-Level Reliability of Tool-Using Agents
This paper measures the reliability of tool-using agents at the invocation level, revealing that under exact-match scoring, error propagation parameters are fixed by the scoring rule and proposes a conditional-on-state scoring method to address this.
Mapping the Evaluation Frontier: An Empirical Survey of the Bias-Reliability Tradeoff Across Eleven Evaluator-Agent Conditions
This empirical survey extends prior work on the bias-reliability tradeoff in LLM evaluation by measuring evaluator coupling, strategy diversity, and small-sample reliability across 11 conditions, confirming that low evaluator influence leads to high measurement noise while strong coupling reduces diversity and noise.
Evaluation-Conditioned Training: Teaching Models to Generalize to Stronger Oversight Regimes
The paper introduces Evaluation-Conditioned Training (ECT), a post-training framework that conditions on natural language descriptions of feedback fidelity to help LLMs generalize to stronger oversight, with proof-of-concept experiments showing improved even-handedness and reduced sycophancy.
Agent Evaluation Reliability: More Tasks Won't (Always) Fix An Agent Leaderboard
Stanford researchers develop a Bayesian variance-decomposition framework using Generalizability theory to diagnose reliability in agent benchmarks, showing that adding more tasks cannot fix uncertainty caused by scaffold coverage and that pooling diverse benchmarks is a cheaper path to reliable rankings.