Designing Reliable LLM-Assisted Rubric Scoring for Constructed Responses: Evidence from Physics Exams

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly considered for automated assessment and feedback, understanding when LLM marking is valid is essential. We evaluate LLM-as-a-judge marking across four settings spanning three assessment formats - structured questions, written essays, and scientific plots - comparing GPT-5.2, Grok 4.1, Claude Opus 4.5, DeepSeek-V3.2, Gemini 3 Pro, and committee aggregations against human markers under blind, solution-provided, false-solution, and anchored conditions. We distinguish absolute accuracy from rank-order agreement, since a marking system can match the distribution of human marks while failing to order responses by quality. Across task types, performance is sharply task-dependent. For blind university exam questions ($n=771$) and secondary and university structured questions ($n=1151$), models show robust rank-order agreement with human markers (Spearman $ρ> 0.6$), with official solutions reducing error and strengthening agreement. False solutions degrade absolute accuracy, showing that models defer to provided references, but leave rank-ordering intact. Essay marking behaves fundamentally differently. Across $n=55$ scripts, each containing five essays ($n=275$ essays total), blind AI marking is harsher and more variable than human marking and adding marking guidance does not improve rank-order agreement. Anchored exemplars shift the AI mean close to the human mean and compress variance below the human standard deviation, but rank-order agreement remains near-zero. For code-based plot elements ($n=1400$), models achieve high rank-order agreement ($ρ> 0.83$) with near-linear calibration. LLM marking validity depended strongly on the assessment task, and this held for every contemporary model tested. The results also show that the reliability of the human benchmark constrains the claims that can be made about AI-human agreement.

Automated essay scoring (AES) using large language models (LLMs) offers promising use cases for language assessment, yet high-stakes testing requires scores that are both controllable and verifiable, which current LLM-based scorers lack. Given that, we investigate whether LLM-based scorers form distinct internal representations for individual scoring rubrics and whether these representations can be independently controlled. Probing and steering 25 open-weight base LLMs (0.13B-10.31B parameters; 14 families) on human-scored BESTEP English writing tasks, we find that holistic scores are decodable from model activations for the longer tasks (Parts 2 and 3) and only weakly for the shortest (Part 1). Furthermore, scoring rubrics have partly separable directions in representation space for the longer tasks, though not for short responses (Part 1). However, causal steering reveals a critical limitation: applying a matching intervention (e.g., steering "grammar" on a grammar-degraded response) yields only a negligible advantage (about 2% of the effect) over a mismatched intervention (e.g., steering "vocabulary"), and none that is detectable in any of the 10 testable comparisons across reliably measured rubrics. Rather than controlling distinct evaluative dimensions, the rubric directions share a dominant lever whose rubric-specific parts are not selective, which may mirror the halo structure of human ratings. Our contributions are two-fold. First, we show that analytic scoring rubrics designed for human raters do not behave as independent controls in base LLMs, even among the seven models whose scores agree best with human raters ($r \geq 0.6$). Second, we establish a methodology that shows that score agreement and decodability do not imply rubric-level control in LLM-based assessment.

LLM-based automated scoring approaches near-human performance, but scaling to new tasks remains bottlenecked by the per-item human configuration of upstream stages such as rubric construction. Human experts bypass this bottleneck through evaluation heuristics developed over extensive practice. We ask whether LLMs can learn similar heuristics directly from scoring experience, and formalize this as the concept of assessment skills: item-independent natural-language procedural knowledge that guides LLMs through specific stages of the scoring workflow. Focusing on rubric construction as a first instantiation, we propose an iterative framework that decomposes a skill into a fixed scaffold and learnable item-agnostic rules, refining the rules through LLM-driven diagnosis of scoring errors and validation-gated selection. The framework requires no expert-written rubric. On all ten ASAP-SAS items, optimized skills substantially improve LLM-based scoring and frequently surpass the dataset-provided expert rubric. Cross-item transfer experiments further reveal that learned skills capture both generalizable and item-specific patterns.