CHiL(L)Grader: Calibrated Human-in-the-Loop Short-Answer Grading

Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise for automated grading, but their outputs can be unreliable. Rather than improving grading accuracy directly, we address a complementary problem: predicting when an LLM grader is likely to be correct. This enables selective automation where high-confidence predictions are processed automatically while uncertain cases are flagged for human review. We compare three confidence estimation methods (self-reported confidence, self-consistency voting, and token probability) across seven LLMs of varying scale (4B to 120B parameters) on three educational datasets: RiceChem (long-answer chemistry), SciEntsBank, and Beetle (short-answer science). Our experiments reveal that self-reported confidence consistently achieves the best calibration across all conditions (avg ECE 0.166 vs 0.229 for self-consistency). Surprisingly, self-consistency remains 38% worse despite requiring 5$\times$ the inference cost. Larger models exhibit substantially better calibration though gains vary by dataset and method (e.g., a 28% ECE reduction for self-reported), with GPT-OSS-120B achieving the best calibration (avg ECE 0.100) and strong discrimination (avg AUC 0.668). We also observe that confidence is strongly top-skewed across methods, creating a ``confidence floor'' that practitioners must account for when setting thresholds. These findings suggest that simply asking LLMs to report their confidence provides a practical approach for identifying reliable grading predictions. Code is available here.

Automatic Short Answer Grading (ASAG) with generative large language models (LLMs) has recently demonstrated strong performance without task-specific fine-tuning, while also enabling the generation of synthetic feedback for educational assessment. Despite these advances, LLM-based grading remains imperfect, making reliable confidence estimates essential for safe and effective human-AI collaboration in educational decision-making. In this work, we investigate confidence estimation for ASAG with LLMs by jointly considering model-based confidence signals and dataset-derived uncertainty. We systematically compare three model-based confidence estimation strategies, namely verbalizing, latent, and consistency-based confidence estimation, and show that model-based confidence alone is insufficient to reliably capture uncertainty in ASAG. To address this limitation, we propose a hybrid confidence framework that integrates model-based confidence signals with an explicit estimate of dataset-derived aleatoric uncertainty. Aleatoric uncertainty is operationalized by clustering semantically embedded student responses and quantifying within-cluster heterogeneity. Our results demonstrate that the proposed hybrid confidence measure yields more reliable confidence estimates and improves selective grading performance compared to single-source approaches. Overall, this work advances confidence-aware LLM-based grading for human-in-the-loop assessment, supporting more trustworthy AI-assisted educational assessment systems.

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into educational assessment represents a transformative shift in classroom grading practices. While automated scoring systems and machine learning techniques have existed for decades, generative AI (GenAI) now enables educators to implement standards-based grading (SBG) with unprecedented efficiency and scale. This paper examines the theoretical foundations and evaluates an LLM grader that uses commercially available foundation models with context and prompt engineering to score student work against a rubric. Drawing on an empirical interrater agreement study using Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) data, we observed the Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK) and Proportional Reduction in Mean-Squared Error (PRMSE) across mathematics, science, and ELA, using Claude Sonnet 4, Haiku 4.5, GPT-5, and GPT-5 Mini. The results demonstrate that LLM graders, especially when based on foundational models with more parameters, achieve substantial agreement with human raters in mathematics and science assessments, while the performances vary in ELA, suggesting generic foundation models can be effective at scoring in given contexts. Additional analysis of teacher and student feedback reveals strong acceptance of AI-generated narrative feedback but skepticism toward numerical scores, suggesting that LLMs function most effectively as formative tools rather than summative evaluators. Our findings indicate that thoughtfully designed hybrid models that combine AI efficiency with teacher judgment can reduce workload, enhance feedback quality, and support equitable assessment practices without displacing professional expertise.