Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Long Context Automated Essay Scoring with Language Models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Long-context language models score full essays above human-rater agreement.

desk verdict Useful benchmark of long-context AES models on the new ASAP 2.0 corpus, but the 'long context matters' claim is untested: a 512-token DeBERTa nearly matches the best long-context model. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.10417 v1 pith:DED3466L submitted 2025-09-12 cs.CL

Christopher Ormerod , Gitit Kehat This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords automatedessayscoringlong-contextlanguagemodelsASAP2.0quadraticweightedkappaMambastate-spacemodelLongformertruncationlinear-complexitysequence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that automated essay scoring does not have to truncate long student essays at the 512-token limit imposed by early transformers. On the ASAP 2.0 benchmark, it compares six model families that extend or replace the fixed-length attention mechanism, and reports that every one surpasses the human-rater agreement of 0.745. Longformer reaches the top quadratic weighted kappa of 0.798, while Mamba-130m scores 0.797 despite having only 130 million parameters. The authors read this as evidence that long-context architectures are viable for scoring full essays, and that linear-complexity state-space models are a practical choice at scale.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a set of architectural fixes to the transformer's fixed context: Longformer's sliding-window local attention with a few global tokens; XLNet's recurrent hidden-state concatenation; ModernBERT's and Llama's rotary position embeddings trained at extended lengths; and Mamba's selective state-space recurrence, which replaces attention with a linear-complexity update. The evaluation harness is the quadratic weighted kappa, computed against a human-human baseline of 0.745 introduced with the ASAP 2.0 corpus. Mamba's selective state-space model does the main argumentative work: it gives near-top agreement at 130M parameters and linear scaling, which the authors cite to make long-context scoring practical.

What would settle it

Stratify QWK by essay length: if models with 8k contexts do not beat DeBERTa's truncated 512-token predictions on essays longer than 512 tokens, or if the human-baseline comparison flips on those essays, the paper's central claim about long context collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that on the ASAP 2.0 essays, long-context language models can score full-length student texts with rater agreement at or above human-human agreement, so truncation is not required for good machine scoring. The paper reports QWK of 0.798 for Longformer, 0.797 for Mamba-130m, 0.792 for Llama-3.2-8B, 0.790 for DeBERTa and ModernBERT, and 0.784 for XLNet, against a human baseline of 0.745. The authors emphasize Mamba's result because it comes from a 130M-parameter state-space model with linear complexity rather than quadratic attention, and they treat the value of long contexts as validity rather than raw agreement: a model that never sees an essay's organization cannot faithfully score the organization trait. A secondary finding is that a large instruction-tuned generative model, Llama-3.2-8B, does not outscore compact encoders, though it can generate feedback.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison only matters if a large enough share of ASAP 2.0 essays exceeds the 512-token cutoff; the reported mean word counts alone do not show that, since means near 350 words leave room for most essays to fit within 512 tokens.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Scoring systems can ingest entire essays instead of 512-token prefixes, so rubric traits such as organization and argument flow are evaluated on the text a human rater would read.
  • Linear-complexity models like Mamba become attractive for large-scale assessment because they combine near-top agreement with lower compute and 2–8x speedups over transformers.
  • A diverse set of long-context designs—selective attention, recurrence, rotary embeddings, and state-space models—yields similar agreement, so the choice among them can be driven by efficiency, privacy, and deployment constraints.
  • Generative LLMs add feedback capabilities beyond scoring, which could matter more than a small QWK difference.
  • Ensembling these architecturally different models is a natural next step, since their errors are likely decorrelated.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper does not report a token-length distribution, so whether the long-context advantage actually comes from long essays is untested; a reader could check by stratifying QWK on essays above and below 512 tokens.
  • Mamba's strong agreement despite frozen state-space weights hints that long-range essay organization may be captured by compressed state rather than explicit pairwise attention; ablating state size or window width would test that.
  • If the 0.798 versus 0.784 spread is within run-to-run noise, the practical conclusion shifts from 'Longformer is best' to 'most long-context designs are interchangeable', which strengthens a cost-based selection argument.
  • The validity framing suggests a testable extension: score organization and local language traits separately, feeding full text to the former and truncated text to the latter, to see where long context earns its cost.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper evaluates several pretrained language models for automated essay scoring on the ASAP 2.0 dataset, arguing that long-context architectures are needed because 512-token truncation may undermine scoring validity. It compares DeBERTa-Base (512 tokens), XLNet-Base, Longformer, ModernBERT, Mamba-130m, and Llama-3.2-8B, reporting quadratic weighted kappa (QWK) against a human-human agreement of 0.745. All models reportedly surpass this baseline, with Longformer highest at 0.798 and Mamba-130m at 0.797. The discussion claims that long-context models are viable for AES and that state-space models offer efficiency advantages, while conceding that the goal of long-context modeling 'should not be about getting higher agreement.'

Significance. If the central long-context claim were established, this would be a useful benchmark for AES on a modern, long-essay dataset and a notable demonstration that a 130M state-space model competes with much larger attention-based models. The paper has several strengths: it covers a diverse set of architectural families, uses a recent dataset with more long essays than the original ASAP, reports against a human baseline, and is transparent about training choices such as frozen Mamba components and prompt variations for the generative model. However, the experimental design does not isolate context length from architecture or pretraining, the reported QWK differences are small and presented without uncertainty, and the asserted validity benefit for organization is never measured. The significance is therefore conditional on additional experiments that directly test the long-context motivation.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Table 2] The claim that long-context models are 'well-suited for handling lengthy student essays' is not supported by the reported comparisons. The 512-token DeBERTa-Base achieves QWK 0.790, within 0.008 of the best long-context model (Longformer, 0.798) and 0.007 of Mamba-130m (0.797). Because no experiment compares the same model on full versus truncated inputs, architecture family and pretraining are fully confounded with context length; the small observed differences could be due to model family rather than context. Please add a paired full-versus-truncated comparison, for example Longformer or ModernBERT trained on 512-token inputs versus the same model on full-length inputs, and report the proportion of essays that exceed 512 tokens.
  2. [Section 2.7, Table 1] The abstract states that 'many responses in the ASAP 2.0 dataset are too long for most language models,' but Table 1 reports only mean word counts (376.1 train, 342.7 test). Without the distribution of essay lengths, the reader cannot determine whether the long-context premise is vacuous for this dataset; if most essays fall below 512 tokens, the motivation and the comparisons between long-context and 512-token models lose their force. Please report the proportion of essays exceeding 512 tokens (and, ideally, a length histogram) per prompt and grade, separately for train and test, and clarify what happens to essays longer than the implemented context caps such as the 8k bound noted in Table 2.
  3. [Sections 4 and 5] The paper reports single QWK point estimates with no confidence intervals, standard errors, or significance tests. The differences among models (0.784 to 0.798) and between models and the human baseline (0.745) are small, so the statements that 'Longformer achiev[ed] the highest overall QWK' and that 'all models surpassed this baseline' are not statistically supported. Report bootstrap intervals or a paired significance test over essays, and consider multiple training seeds. Without this, the model ordering and the claim of surpassing human agreement are not actionable.
  4. [Section 5] The paper concedes that using long context 'should not be about getting higher agreement,' yet it does not measure the asserted validity benefit. The abstract and introduction claim that truncation 'undermines the model's ability to fully capture and evaluate organizational elements of the scoring rubric,' but no experiment, rubric trait score, or qualitative analysis of organization is reported. If the contribution is a validity argument rather than an agreement improvement, the paper should include a direct measurement or analysis of the organizational dimension, or the claims should be revised to match the evidence presented.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.4] The ModernBERT context length is given as '8196'; this is presumably a typo for 8192 and should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3.2] The QLoRA configuration is underspecified: the rank, scaling factor, target linear layers (beyond the Lq, Lk, Lv mention), quantization bit-width, and exact hyperparameters are not reported, which prevents reproduction of the Llama-3.2-8B result.
  3. [Section 3.1] The observation that 'full model training seemed to readily lead to model collapse' for Mamba would be more useful if accompanied by a precise description of the failure mode (e.g., loss divergence, degenerate predictions) and the exact set of frozen layers.
  4. [Section 3] The data split procedure is unclear: the paper mentions a training set and a development set, but does not state explicitly whether the train/test split is random, stratified by prompt, or otherwise controlled. Please clarify so that prompt overlap between train and test can be ruled out.
  5. [Throughout] There are a number of typographical and formatting errors, including 'pretaining' in Section 3 and the missing closing parenthesis in Equation (4); a careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is an empirical benchmark evaluated against the external ASAP 2.0 dataset and a human-rater QWK baseline, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

This is an empirical evaluation paper, not a derivation. The central results are QWK values computed by the standard weighted-kappa formula (Eq. 4) from model scores versus human scores on the externally provided ASAP 2.0 test set, compared against the reported human-human agreement of 0.745. No parameter is fitted to a subset and then presented as an independent prediction; the only development-set selection is the rubric prompt variation for generative models, which is ordinary model selection rather than circularity. The paper's motivating claim that truncation at 512 tokens undermines rubric validity is an interpretive argument, not an input to the scoring equations, so the absence of a direct full-versus-truncated comparison weakens the evidence but does not create a circular derivation. The self-citations (Ormerod et al., 2023; Ormerod and Kwako, 2024; Rodriguez et al., 2019; Lottridge et al., 2023) support methodology or motivation, but the benchmark numbers come from external pretrained checkpoints and the external dataset, not from those cited works. The lack of confidence intervals and the small QWK gaps between DeBERTa-Base (0.790) and Longformer (0.798) are correctness and evidentiary concerns, not circularity. No circular step can be exhibited, so the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an empirical comparison with no invented entities and no fitted physical or scientific parameters. The main unstated load-bearing premise is that ASAP 2.0 actually stresses long-context processing; the paper only reports mean lengths. The 8k cap applied to XLNet and Mamba is an arbitrary implementation choice that shapes the comparison.

free parameters (1)
  • Context length cap for XLNet and Mamba = 8,000 tokens
    The authors set this cap to bound memory for training (Table 2 note). It is an implementation choice, not an architectural limit for XLNet or Mamba, and it affects what 'long-context' means in the comparison.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Quadratic weighted kappa is the appropriate evaluation metric for automated essay scoring agreement.
    The paper uses QWK (Eq. 4) without discussing its sensitivity to score distribution, tied scores, or the choice of reference rater.
  • domain assumption ASAP 2.0 rubric scores and human rater labels are valid targets for model training and evaluation.
    The paper relies on the dataset's scores and the human-human QWK of 0.745 as ground truth, without independent validation of the rubric or rater reliability beyond the cited source.
  • domain assumption ASAP 2.0 essays are long enough that 512-token truncation loses rubric-relevant content.
    This is the motivating premise of the paper, but Table 1 gives only mean word counts and no distribution, maxima, or token counts, so the premise is not directly established.
  • domain assumption Human-human QWK of 0.745 is a fair benchmark for comparing model scores.
    Model scores and human-human agreement are assumed commensurable even though the reference rater and the scoring procedure for models are not fully specified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Long Context Automated Essay Scoring with Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DED3466L

@misc{pith2026250910417,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Long Context Automated Essay Scoring with Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DED3466L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.10417}
}
read the original abstract

Transformer-based language models are architecturally constrained to process text of a fixed maximum length. Essays written by higher-grade students frequently exceed the maximum allowed length for many popular open-source models. A common approach to addressing this issue when using these models for Automated Essay Scoring is to truncate the input text. This raises serious validity concerns as it undermines the model's ability to fully capture and evaluate organizational elements of the scoring rubric, which requires long contexts to assess. In this study, we evaluate several models that incorporate architectural modifications of the standard transformer architecture to overcome these length limitations using the Kaggle ASAP 2.0 dataset. The models considered in this study include fine-tuned versions of XLNet, Longformer, ModernBERT, Mamba, and Llama models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10417 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A layer of the Llama decoder-only architec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A single layer of the Mamba model. The Mamba blocks can be computed with lin￾ear complexity, making them well-suited for long context tasks (Gu et al., 2021). This claim has been validated empirically by the superior per￾formance of the Jamba models, which is an en￾semble of transformer and Mamba layers (Lieber et al., 2024), on RULER benchmarks (Hsieh et al., 2024). As we seek longer and longer context lengths, mod… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    AI@Meta . 2024. https://github.com/meta-llama/llama3/blob/main/MODEL_CARD.md Llama 3 Model Card

    2024

  2. [2]

    Peters, and Arman Cohan

    Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.05150 Longformer: The Long - Document Transformer . arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2004.05150 [cs]

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.05150 2020

  3. [3]

    Casabianca, Sharon C

    Okan Bulut, Maggie Beiting-Parrish, Jodi M. Casabianca, Sharon C. Slater, Hong Jiao, Dan Song, Christopher M. Ormerod, Deborah Gbemisola Fabiyi, Rodica Ivan, Cole Walsh, Oscar Rios, Joshua Wilson, Seyma N. Yildirim-Erbasli, Tarid Wongvorachan, Joyce Xinle Liu, Bin Tan, and Polina Morilova. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.18900 The Rise of Artifi...

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.18900 2024

  4. [4]

    Hyung Won Chung, Le Hou, Shayne Longpre, Barret Zoph, Yi Tay, William Fedus, Yunxuan Li, Xuezhi Wang, Mostafa Dehghani, Siddhartha Brahma, Albert Webson, Shixiang Shane Gu, Zhuyun Dai, Mirac Suzgun, Xinyun Chen, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Alex Castro-Ros, Marie Pellat, Kevin Robinson, and 16 others. 2022. http://arxiv.org/abs/2210.11416 Scaling Instruction - Fi...

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Le, and Christopher D

    Kevin Clark, Minh-Thang Luong, Quoc V. Le, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2003.10555 ELECTRA : Pre -training Text Encoders as Discriminators Rather Than Generators . Technical Report arXiv:2003.10555, arXiv. ArXiv:2003.10555 [cs] type: article

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2003.10555 2020

  6. [6]

    Crossley, Perpetual Baffour, Yu Tian, Aigner Picou, Meg Benner, and Ulrich Boser

    Scott A. Crossley, Perpetual Baffour, Yu Tian, Aigner Picou, Meg Benner, and Ulrich Boser. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2022.100667 The persuasive essays for rating, selecting, and understanding argumentative and discourse elements ( PERSUADE ) corpus 1.0 . Assessing Writing, 54:100667

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Burleigh, and Jules King

    Scott Andrew Crossley, Perpetual Baffour, L. Burleigh, and Jules King. 2025. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5129353 A Large - Scale Corpus for Assessing Source - Based Writing Quality : Asap 2.0

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.5129353 2025

  8. [8]

    Le, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov

    Zihang Dai, Zhilin Yang, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Quoc V. Le, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2019. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1901.02860 Transformer- XL : Attentive Language Models Beyond a Fixed - Length Context . arXiv preprint. ArXiv:1901.02860 [cs, stat]

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1901.02860 2019

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Tim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2023. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2023/hash/1feb87871436031bdc0f2beaa62a049b-Abstract-Conference.html QLoRA : Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMs . Advances in Neural Information Proces...

    2023

  2. [10]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1810.04805 BERT : Pre -training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding . Technical Report arXiv:1810.04805, arXiv. ArXiv:1810.04805 [cs] type: article

    2018 doi arXiv

  3. [11]

    Fei Dong, Yue Zhang, and Jie Yang. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/K17-1017 Attention-based Recurrent Convolutional Neural Network for Automatic Essay Scoring . In Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning ( CoNLL 2017) , pages 153--162, V...

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    Yao Fu, Rameswar Panda, Xinyao Niu, Xiang Yue, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Yoon Kim, and Hao Peng. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.10171 Data Engineering for Scaling Language Models to 128K Context . arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2402.10171 [cs]

    2024 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    Alex Graves, Navdeep Jaitly, and Abdel-rahman Mohamed. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1109/ASRU.2013.6707742 Hybrid speech recognition with Deep Bidirectional LSTM . In 2013 IEEE Workshop on Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding , pages 273--278

    2013

  6. [14]

    Albert Gu and Tri Dao. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.00752 Mamba: Linear - Time Sequence Modeling with Selective State Spaces . arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2312.00752 [cs]

    2024 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Albert Gu, Karan Goel, and Christopher Ré. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.00396v3 Efficiently Modeling Long Sequences with Structured State Spaces

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Pengcheng He, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2111.09543 DeBERTaV3 : Improving DeBERTa using ELECTRA - Style Pre - Training with Gradient - Disentangled Embedding Sharing . arXiv preprint. Number: arXiv:2111.09543 arXiv:2111.09543 [cs]

    2021 doi arXiv

  9. [17]

    Cheng-Ping Hsieh, Simeng Sun, Samuel Kriman, Shantanu Acharya, Dima Rekesh, Fei Jia, Yang Zhang, and Boris Ginsburg. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.06654 RULER : What 's the Real Context Size of Your Long - Context Language Models ? arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2404.06654 [cs]

    2024 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen

    Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2106.09685 LoRA : Low - Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models . arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2106.09685 [cs]

    2021 doi arXiv

  11. [19]

    Timo Kaufmann, Paul Weng, Viktor Bengs, and Eyke Hüllermeier. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.14925 A Survey of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback . arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2312.14925

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Taku Kudo and John Richardson. 2018. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D18-2012 SentencePiece : A simple and language independent subword tokenizer and detokenizer for Neural Text Processing . In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing ...

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    Opher Lieber, Barak Lenz, Hofit Bata, Gal Cohen, Jhonathan Osin, Itay Dalmedigos, Erez Safahi, Shaked Meirom, Yonatan Belinkov, Shai Shalev-Shwartz, Omri Abend, Raz Alon, Tomer Asida, Amir Bergman, Roman Glozman, Michael Gokhman, Avashalom Manevich, Nir Ratner, Noam Rozen, and...

    2024 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. 2019. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1711.05101 Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization . arXiv preprint. ArXiv:1711.05101 [cs, math]

    2019 doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    Susan Lottridge, Chris Ormerod, and Amir Jafari. 2023. Psychometric Considerations When Using Deep Learning for Automated Scoring . In Advancing Natural Language Processing in Educational Assessment . Routledge. Num Pages: 16

    2023

  16. [24]

    Mary L. McHugh. 2012. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3900052/ Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic . Biochemia Medica, 22(3):276--282

    2012

  17. [25]

    OpenAI. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774 GPT -4 Technical Report . arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2303.08774 [cs]

    2023 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    Christopher Ormerod, Amy Burkhardt, Mackenzie Young, and Sue Lottridge. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.06239 Argumentation Element Annotation Modeling using XLNet . arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2311.06239 [cs]

    2023 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Christopher Michael Ormerod and Alexander Kwako. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.01873 Automated Text Scoring in the Age of Generative AI for the GPU -poor . arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2407.01873 [cs]

    2024 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    Ellis Batten Page. 2003. Project Essay Grade : PEG . In Automated essay scoring: A cross-disciplinary perspective , pages 43--54. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, US

    2003

  21. [29]

    Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, and Ilya Sutskever. 2018. https://www.cs.ubc.ca/ amuham01/LING530/papers/radford2018improving.pdf Improving Language Understanding by Generative Pre -training

    2018

  22. [30]

    Pedro Uria Rodriguez, Amir Jafari, and Christopher M. Ormerod. 2019. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1909.09482 Language models and Automated Essay Scoring . arXiv preprint. Number: arXiv:1909.09482 arXiv:1909.09482 [cs, stat]

    2019 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    Shermis and Ben Hamner

    Mark D. Shermis and Ben Hamner. 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203122761.CH19 Contrasting State -of-the- Art Automated Scoring of Essays . pages 335--368. Publisher: Routledge Handbooks Online

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    Jianlin Su, Murtadha Ahmed, Yu Lu, Shengfeng Pan, Wen Bo, and Yunfeng Liu. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2023.127063 RoFormer : Enhanced transformer with Rotary Position Embedding . Neurocomputing, 568:127063

    2024

  25. [33]

    Kaveh Taghipour and Hwee Tou Ng. 2016. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D16-1193 A Neural Approach to Automated Essay Scoring . In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 1882--1891, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational...

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/hash/3f5ee243547dee91fbd053c1c4a845aa-Abstract.html Attention is All you Need . In Advances in Neural In...

    2017

  27. [35]

    Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2019. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1804.07461 GLUE : A Multi - Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understanding . Technical Report arXiv:1804.07461, arXiv. ArXiv:1...

    2019 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    Benjamin Warner, Antoine Chaffin, Benjamin Clavié, Orion Weller, Oskar Hallström, Said Taghadouini, Alexis Gallagher, Raja Biswas, Faisal Ladhak, Tom Aarsen, Nathan Cooper, Griffin Adams, Jeremy Howard, and Iacopo Poli. 2024. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.13663 Smarter, ...

    2024 doi arXiv

  29. [37]

    Williamson, Xiaoming Xi, and F

    David M. Williamson, Xiaoming Xi, and F. Jay Breyer. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2011.00223.x A Framework for Evaluation and Use of Automated Scoring . Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 31(1):2--13. \_eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10...

    2012

  30. [38]

    Dauphin, and Michael Auli

    Felix Wu, Angela Fan, Alexei Baevski, Yann N. Dauphin, and Michael Auli. 2019. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1901.10430 Pay Less Attention with Lightweight and Dynamic Convolutions . arXiv preprint. ArXiv:1901.10430 [cs]

    2019 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    Changrong Xiao, Wenxing Ma, Sean Xin Xu, Kunpeng Zhang, Yufang Wang, and Qi Fu. 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.06431 From Automation to Augmentation : Large Language Models Elevating Essay Scoring Landscape . arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2401.06431 [cs] version: 1

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Lingling Xu, Haoran Xie, Si-Zhao Joe Qin, Xiaohui Tao, and Fu Lee Wang. 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2312.12148 Parameter- Efficient Fine - Tuning Methods for Pretrained Language Models : A Critical Review and Assessment . arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2312.12148 [cs]

    2023 doi arXiv

  33. [41]

    Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Russ R Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V Le. 2019. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2019/hash/dc6a7e655d7e5840e66733e9ee67cc69-Abstract.html XLNet : Generalized Autoregressive Pretraining for Language Understanding . In Advanc...

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.