Papers › Does Continued Pretraining on a Learner Corpus Improve Automated Essay Scoring on...

Does Continued Pretraining on a Learner Corpus Improve Automated Essay Scoring on English Proficiency Tests? Evidence from EFCAMDAT

25 May 2026arXiv:2605.25924added by Syntology

Duy Anh Nguyen

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

Recent automated essay scoring (AES) studies increasingly use pretrained transformer models, but these models are usually pretrained on general-domain English and may under-represent second-language learner writing. This study investigates whether domain-adaptive continued pretraining (DAPT) on the EFCAMDAT learner corpus improves transformer-based AES for English proficiency tests. We apply DAPT to three transformer encoders and evaluate them on FCE and IELTS in both in-domain scoring and few-shot cross-dataset transfer. Full-corpus DAPT produces mixed results across models, datasets, and metrics. Further analyses suggest that these mixed effects are partly explained by mismatches in proficiency, genre, and communicative purpose between EFCAMDAT and the downstream datasets. A proficiency-based ablation shows that targeted DAPT using CEFR-aligned subsets improves downstream scoring more reliably than full-corpus DAPT, especially for FCE with B1--B2 data. However, these gains do not consistently improve cross-dataset transfer. Overall, the findings suggest that continued pretraining on a learner-writing corpus can benefit in-domain AES for English assessment when the pretraining data is sufficiently aligned with the downstream assessment settings. However, it does not automatically improve transferability across different English proficiency test datasets.

PaperPDFCode Syntology ran

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2605.25924")

Code

Syntology Ran 4 of 5 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 1 has no recorded run. Of those that ran: 4 ran with no contract checked.

By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 5 samples from 1 repository, 4 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

tanloong/neosca found in paper text by Syntology report

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

5 samples harvested; 4 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

4ran
1unverified

Licence: 5 of the 5 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from tanloong/neosca. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

chunks tanloong/neosca/src/neosca/ns_utils.py found in paper text by Syntology ran GPL-3.0 (copyleft) · pointer only · 15538c38f848122b · report
get_dir_frm_env tanloong/neosca/src/neosca/ns_envar.py found in paper text by Syntology ran fingerprinted GPL-3.0 (copyleft) · pointer only · 6d10c7659dfc63b1 · report
safe_div tanloong/neosca/src/neosca/ns_utils.py found in paper text by Syntology ran fingerprinted GPL-3.0 (copyleft) · pointer only · e7469e71b8f7c59c · report
safe_log tanloong/neosca/src/neosca/ns_utils.py found in paper text by Syntology ran GPL-3.0 (copyleft) · pointer only · fe2b70fed8f5568f · report
get_yes_or_no tanloong/neosca/src/neosca/ns_print.py found in paper text by Syntology unverified GPL-3.0 (copyleft) · pointer only · f035ce876a2de55f · report

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2605.25924, was issued in May 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections