Matched via arXiv identifier search
- Stars
- 0
- Last push
- Mar 4, 2026 (85d ago)
Risk flags
- No CI pipeline detected
- No tagged releases
- No Docker setup
Joe Watson, Ivan O'Connor, Chia-Wen Chen, Luning Sun, Fang Luo, David Stillwell
Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
Psychological assessments commonly rely on rating-scale items, which require respondents to condense complex experiences into predefined categories. Although rich, unstructured text is often captured alongside these scales, it rarely contributes to measuring the target trait because it lacks direct mapping to the latent scale. We introduce the Information-Determined Scoring (IDS) framework, where large language model ...
s (LLMs) score free-text responses with simple prompts to generate candidate items that are co-calibrated with a baseline scale and retained based on the psychometric information they provide about the target trait. This marks a conceptual departure from traditional automated text scoring by prioritising information gain over fidelity to expert rubrics or human-annotated data. Using depression as a case study, we developed and tested the method in upper-secondary students (n = 693) and a matched synthetic dataset (n = 3,000). Across held-out test sets, augmenting a 19-item rating-scale measure with LLM-derived items yielded significant improvements in measurement precision and accuracy, and stronger convergent validity with an external suicidality measure throughout the adaptive test. In adaptive simulations, LLM-derived items contributed information equivalent to adding up to 6.3 and 16.0 rating-scale items in real and synthetic data, respectively. This enabled earlier high-precision measurement: after 10 items, 46.3% of respondents reached SE <= .3 under the strongest augmented test compared with 35.5% at baseline in real data, and 60.4% versus 34.7% in synthetic data. These findings illustrate how the IDS framework leverages unstructured text to enhance existing psychological measures, with applications in clinical health and beyond.
No concrete benchmark grounding is available yet. Treat the page as context or an implementation starting point only.
Psychological assessments commonly rely on rating-scale items, which require respondents to condense complex experiences into predefined categories.
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Matched via arXiv identifier search
Risk flags
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
Hardware requirements
No verified implementation available
No benchmark numbers could be verified. You will not be able to validate reproduction correctness against published numbers.
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Datasets
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tasks
Scientific computing
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Natural Language Processing, Large Language Models
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.