A Unified Framework to Elicit Structured Feedback for Interpretable Multi-Trait Essay Scoring
Organizations: National Key Laboratory for Multimedia Information Processing, Peking University · School of Computer Science, Peking University · School of Chinese Language and Literature, Beijing Normal University
Abstract
Multi-trait Automated Essay Scoring (AES) requires rubric-grounded reasoning across interdependent traits, rather than isolated score prediction. Existing feedback-enhanced methods often decouple feedback from scoring or assess traits independently, weakening score--feedback consistency and rubric alignment. We propose HiFTS, a unified autoregressive framework that generates hierarchical CoT feedback before predicting trait-level and holistic scores. HiFTS distills rubric-grounded hierarchical CoT feedback from a teacher LLM and trains student models to jointly generate feedback and scores. HiFTS further applies Group Relative Policy Optimization with a composite reward balancing score agreement, calibration, feedback quality, and structural validity. At inference, a lightweight global prior provides holistic guidance to reduce drift during long-form reasoning. We also introduce CFMS-34, a Chinese multi-trait AES dataset with 951 essays annotated with holistic scores and 34 rubric-based traits. Experiments on CFMS-34 and ASAP++ show that HiFTS achieves strong holistic and trait-level scoring while producing coherent, rubric-aligned feedback.
Figures & tables
| Dimension | Code | Definition / Trait Description |
| Content | C01–C03 | Authenticity, sufficiency, and novelty of selected materials. |
| C04–C05 | Alignment with the central theme; depth of thought and originality. | |
| C06 | Multi-perspective thinking and appropriateness of material presentation. | |
| Structure | S01 | Logical paragraph division and structural clarity. |
| S02–S03 | Use of foreshadowing, transitions, and cohesive devices. | |
| S04–S05 | Structural coherence (e.g., “General-Specific-General”) and thread development. |
| Statistic | Value |
| Total Essays | 951 |
| Language | Chinese (Simplified) |
| Raters per Essay | 2 (Human Experts) |
| Avg. Essay Length | 492.4 Chinese characters |
| Score Dimensions | Overall + 34 Sub-traits |
| Score Range | 0.0 – 5.0 |
| Dataset | Language | Expert Annotation | Dual Raters | Multi-trait | Fine-grained |
| EFCAMDAT Geertzen et al. (2013) | EN | ||||
| ICLE Granger et al. (2009) | EN | ||||
| TOEFL11 Blanchard et al. (2013) | EN | ||||
| FCE Yannakoudakis et al. (2011) | EN | ||||
| ASAP++ Mathias and Bhattacharyya (2018) | EN | ||||
| TOREE Zhuang et al. (2024) | CN |
| Model | Mean Score | QWK |
| GPT-4.1 OpenAI (2025) | 3.3475 | 0.4222 |
| Gemini-3 Google (2025) | 3.1937 | 0.4363 |
| Doubao-Seed-1.6 ByteDance (2025) | 2.0743 | 0.1595 |
| Qwen3-max Qwen Team (2025) | 3.4059 | 0.4201 |
| DeepSeek-V3 DeepSeek-AI (2024) | 3.5792 | 0.4130 |
| DeepSeek-R1 DeepSeek-AI (2025) | 3.0396 | 0.3271 |
| Method | Explain. | CFMS-34 | ASAP++ | |||||
| Overall | Traits | MSE | WinRate | Prompts | Traits | WinRate | ||
| HISK | 0.405 | 0.309 | 1.374 | - | 0.644 | 0.611 | - | |
| STL-LSTM | 0.484 | 0.365 | 1.454 | - | 0.684 | 0.656 | - | |
| MTL-BiLSTM | 0.519 | 0.396 | 1.306 | - | 0.665 | 0.638 | - | |
| ArTS | 0.264 | 0.149 | 1.960 | - | 0.717 | 0.695 | - | |
| RMTS | 0.296 | 0.303 | 1.431 | - | 0.720 | 0.704 | - | |
| Method | Over. | Cont. | PA | Lang. | Nar. | Org. | Conv. | WC | SF | Style | Voice | Mean |
| HISK | 0.718 | 0.679 | 0.697 | 0.605 | 0.659 | 0.610 | 0.527 | 0.579 | 0.553 | 0.609 | 0.489 | 0.611 |
| STL-LSTM | 0.750 | 0.707 | 0.731 | 0.640 | 0.699 | 0.649 | 0.605 | 0.621 | 0.612 | 0.659 | 0.544 | 0.656 |
| MTL-BiLSTM | 0.764 | 0.685 | 0.701 | 0.604 | 0.668 | 0.615 | 0.560 | 0.615 | 0.598 | 0.632 | 0.582 | 0.638 |
| ArTS | 0.751 | 0.730 | 0.751 | 0.698 | 0.725 | 0.672 | 0.668 | 0.679 | 0.678 | 0.721 | 0.570 | 0.695 |
| HiFTS-PPO w/o prior | 0.751 | 0.715 | 0.730 | 0.662 | 0.708 | 0.645 | 0.640 | 0.652 | 0.625 | 0.690 | 0.565 | 0.671 |
| HiFTS w/o prior | 0.754 | 0.722 | 0.745 | 0.685 | 0.712 | 0.670 | 0.635 | 0.668 | 0.662 | 0.688 | 0.597 | 0.685 |
| Flat feedback (DeepSeek-Reasoner) | Hierarchical CoT feedback (Ours) |
| This essay revolves around the interaction between “me” and the hamster, with genuine emotions, but it is overall quite simple , lacking in content richness and loose in structure. The opening directly introduces the hamster’s appearance and habits, which is concise but lacks appeal . The main body describes playing, feeding, breeding, and changes in the relationship, but the material is organized haphazardly , with a lack of natural transitions between paragraphs—for example, from “I loved watching it eat sunflower seeds” to “it gave birth to nine babies,” resulting in a logical leap . Detail description is insufficient ; for instance, the process of eating sunflower seeds is attempted but not vivid enough . While emotional expression is sincere, the depth of thought is lacking , failing to explore deeper insights. The ending suddenly confesses feelings , appearing somewhat rushed. The language is fluent but plain, with basically no rhetorical devices or varied expressions. Observation follows a certain order but lacks clear prioritization. Overall … | L1 Global Essay Understanding The student essay “Little Hamster” is …. L2 Dimension Analysis Content The essay includes …These materials are …(C02), and they are …theme (C04). The author … in a …order (E12). In particular , the description of …is vivid and expressive (E11). The essay also elaborates …engaging. However , the essay’s …lacks deeper reflection (C05), and the integration between multi-perspective content and material selection …(C06), while handling of transitional materials appears somewhat rigid (S10). Structure In terms of structural organization, the essay begins with …(S11), and the conclusion remains …(S12). The content of …(S06), and … maintain a connection to topic sentences (S07). The preceding and subsequent content is also presented with …(S02). However , transitions between …(S03), resulting in …(S08). Expression … |
| Method | Grounding |
| HiFTS-SFT | 0.60 |
| HiFTS-PPO w/o prior | 0.72 |
| HiFTS-PPO | 0.74 |
| HiFTS w/o prior | 0.74 |
| HiFTS | 0.78 |
| Method | Overall | Traits | WinRate |
| BERT prior | 0.489 | - | - |
| Qwen zero-shot | 0.235 | 0.154 | - |
| Qwen sft w/o CoT | 0.432 | 0.193 | - |
| HiFTS-SFT | 0.528 | 0.387 | Ref. |
| HiFTS-PPO w/o prior | 0.572 | 0.417 | 0.603 |
| HiFTS-PPO | 0.647 | 0.407 | 0.651 |
| Window size | Overall | Traits |
| 16 | 0.612 | 0.422 |
| 32 | 0.641 | 0.432 |
| 64 | 0.656 | 0.439 |
| 128 | 0.659 | 0.443 |
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Trait | Mean | Std | Exact | Within-1 | QWK |
| Overall | 3.64 | 0.74 | 0.59 | 0.97 | 0.57 |
| C01 | 4.08 | 0.86 | 0.40 | 0.87 | 0.25 |
| C02 † | 3.96 | 0.84 | 0.43 | 0.87 | 0.32 |
| C03 | 3.63 | 0.81 | 0.45 | 0.90 | 0.34 |
| C04 † | 3.81 | 0.79 | 0.50 | 0.89 | 0.33 |
| C05 † | 3.23 | 0.86 | 0.49 | 0.93 | 0.52 |
Automated Essay Scoring
Automated essay scoring uses computational models to assess student writing against human ratings, rubrics, or proficiency criteria.
See all 56 papers