Evaluating Nonuniform Dependability Across Response Conditions: A Conditional Generalizability Framework Illustrated in Automated Essay Scoring

arXiv cs.CL Papers

Summary

This paper proposes a conditional generalizability framework to evaluate nonuniform dependability across response conditions in automated essay scoring.

arXiv:2607.11981v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Aggregate reliability estimates can obscure heterogeneity in measurement-design burden across response conditions, so a single G- or D-study may mischaracterize a design's adequacy for particular strata. This study introduces a conditional generalizability framework with three components. First, automated scoring configurations -- the encoder architectures and scoring-head families admissible within a fixed pipeline -- are treated as a universe of admissible measurement conditions rather than incidental modeling choices. Second, analytical D-study projections are compared with empirical configuration sweeps over a finite scoring pool, yielding two estimands of design adequacy whose agreement or divergence diagnoses the realized configuration universe. Third, evidence is conditioned on entropy-defined response strata, treating entropy as an operational stratification variable, not a construct claim about writing quality. Whereas recent generalizability-theory extensions address AI-generated item variants on the response side, this framework addresses the analogous scoring-side problem: AI-mediated scoring configurations. Demonstrated with automated essay scoring of timed L2 writing, the realized design was dependable in aggregate (Phi approx 0.76). Re-estimated within entropy strata, dependability stayed high but declined modestly and robustly (Phi = 0.88, 0.87, 0.84) -- a gradient implying different decision-study requirements, the highest-entropy stratum requiring the most crossed conditions. The framework offers a portable workflow for evaluating nonuniform dependability.
Original Article
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

Invocation-Level Reliability of Tool-Using Agents

arXiv cs.AI

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.

Agent Evaluation Reliability: More Tasks Won't (Always) Fix An Agent Leaderboard

arXiv cs.AI

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.