Mitigating Bias in Automated Grading Systems for ESL Learners: A Contrastive Learning Approach

As Automated Essay Scoring (AES) systems are increasingly used in high-stakes educational settings, concerns regarding algorithmic bias against English as a Second Language (ESL) learners have increased. Current Transformer-based regression models trained primarily on native-speaker corpora often learn spurious correlations between surface-level L2 linguistic features and essay quality. In this study, we conduct a bias study of a fine-tuned DeBERTa-v3 model using the ASAP 2.0 and ELLIPSE datasets, revealing a constrained score scaling for high-proficiency ESL writing where high-proficiency ESL essays receive scores 10.3% lower than Native speaker essays of identical human-rated quality. To mitigate this, we propose applying contrastive learning with a triplet construction strategy: Contrastive Learning with Matched Essay Pairs. We constructed a dataset of 17,161 matched essay pairs and fine-tuned the model using Triplet Margin Loss to align the latent representations of ESL and Native writing. Our approach reduced the high-proficiency scoring disparity by 39.9% (to a 6.2% gap) while maintaining a Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK) of 0.76. Post-hoc linguistic analysis suggests the model successfully disentangled sentence complexity from grammatical error, preventing the penalization of valid L2 syntactic structures.

Agreement Between Large Language Models and Human Raters in Essay Scoring: A Research Synthesis

Despite the growing promise of large language models (LLMs) in automatic essay scoring (AES), empirical findings regarding their reliability compared to human raters remain mixed. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we synthesized 65 published and unpublished studies from January 2022 to August 2025 that examined agreement between LLMs and human raters in AES. Across studies, reported LLM-human agreement was generally moderate to good, with agreement indices (e.g., Quadratic Weighted Kappa, Pearson correlation, and Spearman's rho) mostly ranging between 0.30 and 0.80. Substantial variability in agreement levels was observed across studies, reflecting differences in study-specific factors as well as the lack of standardized reporting practices. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Human Leading or Following Preferences: Effects on Human Perception of the Robot and the Human-Robot Collaboration

Achieving effective and seamless human-robot collaboration requires two key outcomes: enhanced team performance and fostering a positive human perception of both the robot and the collaboration. This paper investigates the capability of the proposed task planning framework to realize these objectives by integrating human leading/following preference and performance into its task allocation and scheduling processes. We designed a collaborative scenario wherein the robot autonomously collaborates with participants. The outcomes of the user study indicate that the proactive task planning framework successfully attains the aforementioned goals. We also explore the impact of participants' leadership and followership styles on their collaboration. The results reveal intriguing relationships between these factors, which warrant further investigation in future studies.