Training data generation for context-dependent rubric-based short answer grading

Multi-subject, multi-step scoring requires consistent partial credit across grading conventions. We introduce TeachGrade, a training-free framework using teacher-graded examples. The Task Adapt module builds two frozen memories: Skill captures contextual teacher preferences beyond the rubric; CaseBank supplies local evidence. PreJudge provides retrieval cues; FinalJudge regrades the answer without preliminary scores. On 3,829 SAS-Bench answers across 12 tasks, official macro collaborative consistency score (CCS) rises from Native's 67.99 to 81.32 (+13.33 points), and pooled step exact match from 54.85% to 62.71%. Macro quadratic weighted kappa (QWK) reaches 84.71, exceeding Native, OpenJudge, ProofGrader, and Trojsten by 9.52, 3.50, 11.37, and 17.43 points, respectively, and leading on 8 tasks. Local Qwen3.8-27B gains 8.83 CCS and 4.08 QWK points, improving CCS on all 12 tasks. QWK gains over Native span 6.38--14.65 points on Portuguese automatic essay scoring (AES) and 2.16--2.24 on ASAP-SAS across label views, with lower mean absolute error. These results support reuse across languages, response formats, and backbones without weight updates.

Automatic Short Answer Scoring (ASAS) is central to NLP for Education. However, openly available benchmarks remain scarce, and existing datasets largely address how well students answer a question directly rather than how well they master underlying concepts (knowledge elements) such as thermal energy or epistemic activities (skills) such as reasoning or claim. To address this gap, we introduce Alice, a large-scale, rubric-based German ASAS dataset that is pedagogically aligned and comprises three subtasks: (i) learning performance (Alice-LP), (ii) knowledge elements (Alice-KE), and (iii) skills (Alice-SK). We further formulate rubric-based ASAS as a rubric-retrieval task and benchmark the dataset with a range of language models, from encoder-only models to lightweight LLMs. We also benchmark the dataset with zero-shot prompting via LLMs and a standard classification baseline. The experiments show that LLMs, in particular, struggle to score knowledge elements and skills in the zero-shot setting. They also indicate that rubric text is often useful, especially for Alice-KE and Alice-SK, while on Alice-LP gains over sample-solution-focused inputs are more modest and vary by model and input format.

Small language models can grade open-ended examination answers as reliably as substantially more expensive models when they grade against an explicit rubric. We test this claim as the design principle behind any-to-bench: a frontier model reads source documents once, at ingestion, to extract each question and its rubric; lower-cost models then perform all repeated grading work. We evaluate six cost-efficient model configurations from two model families at three reasoning-effort levels. Each configuration answers 24 open-ended examination questions, and each also grades every answer sheet three times, yielding 3,456 per-question grades. Scores depend overwhelmingly on the answer being graded: answer identity explains 95.6% of score variance, whereas judge identity explains only 0.2%. Raising a writer's reasoning effort moves earned scores by as much as 0.143 of full marks, while raising a judge's reasoning effort moves assigned scores by at most 0.006. Six frontier-tier judges, added as a check, reproduce these scores and are no more reliable as a panel. Two ablations then decompose the rubric on the same questions and answers. Removing its criteria and levels while keeping the official answer changes nothing measurable. Removing the official answer as well collapses reliability (ICC 0.888 to 0.628), inflates scores, and makes judge reasoning effort matter again. The rubric is what decouples grading from judge intelligence, and within the rubric the official answer does nearly all the work. We find no evidence of length preference or same-family preference under rubric-anchored grading.