@inproceedings{gurin-schleifer-etal-2026-quality,
    title = "Quality-Conditioned Agreement in Automated Short Answer Scoring: Mid-Range Degradation and the Impact of Task-Specific Adaptation",
    author = "Gurin Schleifer, Abigail  and
      Ariely, Moriah  and
      Beigman Klebanov, Beata  and
      Salman, Asaf  and
      Alexandron, Giora",
    editor = "Kochmar, Ekaterina  and
      Alhafni, Bashar  and
      Bann{\`o}, Stefano  and
      Bexte, Marie  and
      Burstein, Jill  and
      Horbach, Andrea  and
      Laarmann-Quante, Ronja  and
      Tack, Anais  and
      Yaneva, Victoria  and
      Yuan, Zheng",
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the 21st Workshop on Innovative Use of {NLP} for Building Educational Applications ({BEA} 2026)",
    month = jul,
    year = "2026",
    address = "San Diego, California, USA",
    publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
    url = "https://preview.aclanthology.org/ingest-acl-workshops/2026.bea-1.29/",
    pages = "432--442",
    ISBN = "979-8-89176-409-5",
    abstract = "Automated short answer scoring (ASAS) is shifting from discriminative, fine-tuned models to large language models (LLMs) used in few-shot settings. This paradigm leverages LLMs' broad world knowledge and ease of deployment, but limited task-specific data may reduce alignment on complex scoring tasks. In particular, its impact on scoring partially correct responses that require nuanced interpretation remains underexplored.We investigate the relationship between the degree of task-specific adaptation of different models and quality-conditioned scoring agreement. We compare three LLMs (GPT-5.2, GPT-4o, Claude Opus 4.5) in few-shot mode, a fine-tuned BERT-based encoder, and a human expert on two open-ended biology items, using several hundred student responses and ground truth scores provided by a biology education expert.The results show that human{--}human agreement is highest and stable across the full quality spectrum. All AI models perform well on fully correct and fully incorrect responses, but exhibit substantial degradation on mid-range responses. This mid-range degradation is conditioned on task-specific adaptation: It is most severe in few-shot LLMs with few examples and decreases as task-specific data increases, with fine-tuned encoder models performing best.This mid-range degradation may lead to inequitable evaluation of responses produced by students with developing understanding. Our findings highlight the importance of quality-conditioned fairness, with particular attention to mid-range responses."
}