The study examines whether domain‑adaptive continued pretraining (DAPT) on a learner‑writing corpus (EFCAMDAT) can enhance transformer‑based automated essay scoring (AES) for English proficiency tests. Researchers applied DAPT to BERT, RoBERTa, and DistilBERT and compared the adapted models with their original checkpoints on the FCE and IELTS datasets, evaluating both in‑domain scoring and few‑shot cross‑dataset transfer. Results show that full‑corpus DAPT yields mixed effects, while proficiency‑specific DAPT often outperforms full‑corpus DAPT and sometimes even the non‑adapted baseline, though benefits vary by proficiency composition and encoder architecture and do not consistently transfer across tests.
arXiv:2609.23573v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Synthetic essays can help reduce dependence on human-written data in Automated Essay Scoring (AES). However, they often lack realistic errors, limiting...
arXiv:2606. 10327v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated Essay Scoring (AES) systems must judge interdependent discourse elements (e.
The paper introduces TIZSKT, a zero‑shot cross‑domain knowledge tracing model that separates behavioral sequence modeling from domain‑local historical evidence construction. It uses text as an index via a frozen text encoder and unsupervised per‑domain projection to build question addresses, then aggregates a student’s past outcomes into a question‑specific historical correctness summary. Experiments on three public datasets show that TIZSKT outperforms baselines in mean AUC and accuracy, with ablations confirming the importance of text addressing and cross‑segment continuation.
arXiv:2602. 01747v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Automated Essay Scoring (AES) plays a crucial role in education by providing scalable and efficient assessment tools.
arXiv:2606. 20152v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have substantially transformed Automated Essay Scoring (AES), yet the internal mechanisms underlying LLM-based scoring remain poorly understood.
The study evaluates how well pre‑trained models can classify the Bloom level of AI‑generated educational questions, a task that is crucial for ensuring pedagogical quality. Traditional machine‑learning models perform poorly on out‑of‑distribution data, whereas transformer and large‑language models achieve higher accuracy, especially after feature‑engineering techniques such as text splicing and appending learning objectives. Retraining the models yields the most significant performance gains across all datasets.
arXiv:2608. 20281v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models often fail to answer questions about a bounded document collection when the source documents are not retrieved at inference time.
arXiv:2608. 03803v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multilingual language models are deployed across a hundred or more languages, yet most benchmarks test whether a model can perform a task _in_ a language rather than whether it commands the language itself, conflating fluency with proficiency.
arXiv:2606.00284v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: While continual pretraining (CPT) is a practical way to extend large language models to new languages, na\"ive finetuning often erodes existing cap...
arXiv:2609.36214v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used by people whose first language is not English, yet these users have been shown to receive systematic...
LuxIT is a monolingual instruction‑tuning dataset for Luxembourgish, created by synthesizing instruction‑answer pairs from native texts using the DeepSeek‑R1‑0528 model and a quality‑assurance LLM‑as‑judge process. The resulting 227,507 high‑quality pairs were used to fine‑tune 14 LLMs (≤15 B parameters), yielding an average accuracy increase of +5.37 percentage points on standardized Luxembourgish proficiency exams and improvements in macro‑averaged F1 on nine of the fourteen downstream NLP tasks. These findings demonstrate that synthetic monolingual data can effectively enhance LLM performance in low‑resource languages and reveal the complex relationship between exam performance and practical NLP gains.
The study evaluates how different input representations—orthographic text, IPA transcription, and romanization—affect cross‑lingual transfer in autoregressive multilingual language models. Across three model sizes and eight languages grouped into typologically motivated pairs, romanized pretraining consistently outperforms native orthography and IPA, especially as model scale increases. Fine‑tuning a text‑pretrained model on romanized data can harm performance on languages already covered by the base model, suggesting romanization should be integrated at pretraining rather than applied later.