MADRAG: Multi-Agent Debate with Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Training-Free Analytic Essay Scoring

Large language models (LLMs) have been widely applied to automated essay scoring (AES) and automated feedback generation (AFG). However, existing studies rely primarily on prompt engineering or supervised fine-tuning, while systematic research on reinforcement learning (RL) post-training and automated evaluation of feedback quality remains limited. We propose RLAES, a unified LLM framework that jointly optimizes essay scoring and feedback generation through RL. To make feedback quality measurable, interpretable, and usable for training, we introduce Rubric-based Feedback Evaluation (RFE), an essay-grounded feedback evaluation framework comprising 166 fine-grained binary rubric items and an LLM-as-judge. Building on RFE, we propose Adaptive Gated Feedback Optimization (AGFO), which activates rubric-based feedback rewards on demand during RL, reducing evaluation overhead while improving feedback quality. We also propose Adjacent Contrastive Reasoning (ACR) to improve ordinal score calibration by explicitly contrasting adjacent score levels. Experimental results show that the RFE framework captures essay-feedback consistency, exhibits strong pairwise discriminative power, and closely aligns with expert preferences. On the ASAP benchmark, RLAES-AGFO achieves the best scoring performance among LLM-based methods (QWK = 0.803), while maintaining feedback quality comparable to GPT-5.5 and avoiding the feedback degradation observed under score-only RL. Code and datasets are publicly available at https://github.com/hellomuyi/RLAES.

Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has been widely adopted to improve LLM-based evaluation by prompting multiple agents to negotiate and reach a consensus. However, for subjective rubric-based scoring, inter-agent agreement does not guarantee alignment with human judgments. In this paper, we compare a single-judge baseline against a consensus-based MAD protocol on subjective evaluation tasks and design three ablations to isolate the impact of role prompting, multi-round interaction, and explicit score sharing. Evaluations across six LLMs show that the single-judge baseline achieves the strongest human alignment on average across six judge models, whereas MAD shows degradation in human alignment on both tasks. Our ablations demonstrate that this performance drop stems primarily from asymmetric role prompting rather than the interaction itself. Specifically, assigning a strict judge role introduces a systematic downward bias that the consensus process fails to correct. The central finding is that this bias reflects strict-stance dominance beyond averaging: the consensus score falls well beyond the arithmetic midpoint of the standalone strict and lenient conditions, rather than averaging them out. Removing role asymmetry (Symmetric MAD) largely recovers baseline performance, while masking peer scores widens inter-agent disagreement on average and worsens average human alignment. These findings demonstrate that multi-agent consensus can enforce artificial agreement at the expense of true human alignment, revealing a structural limitation in consensus-style, role-specialized MAD protocols for subjective scoring.

Automated essay scoring (AES) research often relies on rank-based correlation metrics to validate analytic assessment. However, such metrics obscure both intrinsic intercorrelations among analytic dimensions that arise from the structure of writing proficiency itself and halo effects, whereby holistic impressions bleed into fine-grained component scores. As a result, high correlations may mask a system's true diagnostic behaviour. In this study, we propose a novel self-referential assessment evaluation framework that focuses on identifying intra-learner strengths and weaknesses rather than assessing inter-learner rankings. We conduct experiments on the publicly available ICNALE GRA, a uniquely dense second-language writing dataset annotated holistically and analytically by up to 80 trained raters. To obtain reliable reference scores, we apply two-facet Rasch modelling to calibrate rater severity and derive fair average scores across ten analytic aspects and holistic proficiency. We compare the analytic scoring performance of human operational raters and three large language models (LLMs) in a zero-shot setting. Our results show that LLMs tend to outperform single human raters in identifying relative weaknesses (negative feedback) across several proficiency aspects, while human raters remain stronger at identifying relative strengths (positive feedback). Overall, our findings highlight the limitations of rank-based evaluation for analytic assessment and demonstrate the value of intra-learner, profile-based methods for assessing and deploying LLMs in AES.