cs.CLSep 6, 2026

Reliability, validity, and diagnostic evidence for multi-model LLM short-answer scoring

Authors: Chunyi Zhao, Chao Li

Organizations: AIEd Governance

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used or proposed for educational scoring, but single-model and single-run evaluations provide limited evidence for assessment use. Short-answer scoring requires evidence about reliability, validity, severity, diagnostic value, and failure cases. This study evaluated repeated multi-model OCG-PRES guided LLM scoring for short-answer assessment. The analysis used 996 SciEntsBank responses. GPT, DeepSeek, and Qianwen each scored every response across three independent runs using five OCG-PRES dimensions: concept coverage, relation accuracy, reasoning completeness, contradiction control, and domain relevance. Scores were evaluated against official binary and five-category labels and compared with non-LLM baselines based on answer length, Jaccard keyword overlap, TF-IDF cosine similarity, and a combined traditional logistic model. Repeated-run reliability was high for all models, with ICC(3,k) = .977 for GPT, .992 for DeepSeek, and .981 for Qianwen. DeepSeek was the most stable across runs. GPT showed the strongest official-label alignment by AUC (.909), while Qianwen was stricter, with higher precision but lower recall under the fixed threshold = 3.0 rule. OCG-PRES scores followed expected diagnostic patterns across five official categories and outperformed all non-LLM baselines in AUC and F1. Repeated multi-model OCG-PRES scoring provides reliability, validity, and diagnostic evidence for LLM-assisted short-answer scoring. The findings support cautious, evidence-based use as a scoring support tool rather than a replacement for human judgement.

More in this topic

Automated Grading

Automated grading uses machine learning and language models to score student work against answer keys or rubrics and provide feedback.

See all 89 papers

Explore similar work

CardsList
Mar 5, 2026

Autoscoring Anticlimax: A Meta-analytic Understanding of AI's Short-answer Shortcomings and Wording Weaknesses

Automated short-answer scoring lags other LLM applications. We meta-analyze 890 culminating results across a systematic review of LLM short-answer scoring studies, modeling the traditional effect size of Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK) with mixed effects metaregression. We quantitatively illustrate that that the level of difficulty for human experts to perform the task of scoring written work of children has no observed statistical effect on LLM performance. Particularly, we show that some scoring tasks measured as the easiest by human scorers were the hardest for LLMs. Whether by poor implementation by thoughtful researchers or patterns traceable to autoregressive training, on average decoder-only architectures underperform encoders by 0.37--a substantial difference in agreement with humans. Additionally, we measure the contributions of various aspects of LLM technology on successful scoring such as tokenizer vocabulary size, which exhibits diminishing returns--potentially due to undertrained tokens. Findings argue for systems design which better anticipates known statistical shortcomings of autoregressive models. Finally, we provide additional experiments to illustrate wording and tokenization sensitivity and bias elicitation in high-stakes education contexts, where LLMs demonstrate racial discrimination. Code and data for this study are available.

Michael Hardy

Stanford University

Automated GradingAutomated Essay Scoring
AskPDF
May 8, 2026

Quality-Conditioned Agreement in Automated Short Answer Scoring: Mid-Range Degradation and the Impact of Task-Specific Adaptation

Automated short answer scoring (ASAS) is shifting from discriminative, fine-tuned models to large language models (LLMs) used in few-shot settings. This paradigm leverages LLMs broad world knowledge and ease of deployment, but limited task-specific data may reduce alignment on complex scoring tasks. In particular, its impact on scoring partially correct responses that require nuanced interpretation remains underexplored. We investigate the relationship between the degree of task-specific adaptation of different models and quality-conditioned scoring agreement. We compare three LLMs (GPT-5.2, GPT-4o, Claude Opus 4.5) in few-shot mode, a fine-tuned BERT-based encoder, and a human expert on two open-ended biology items, using several hundred student responses and ground truth scores provided by a biology education expert. The results show that human-human agreement is highest and stable across the full quality spectrum. All AI models perform well on fully correct and fully incorrect responses, but exhibit substantial degradation on mid-range responses. This mid-range degradation is conditioned on task-specific adaptation: It is most severe in few-shot LLMs with few examples and decreases as task-specific data increases, with fine-tuned encoder models performing best. This mid-range degradation may lead to inequitable evaluation of responses produced by students with developing understanding. Our findings highlight the importance of quality-conditioned fairness, with particular attention to mid-range responses.

Abigail Victoria Gurin Schleifer, Moriah Ariely, Beata Beigman Klebanov +2

Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel · ETS, Princeton, USA

LLM EvaluationAI in EducationEducationFew-Shot LearningAutomated Grading
AskPDF
Mar 31, 2026

LLM Essay Scoring Under Holistic and Analytic Rubrics: Prompt Effects and Bias

Despite growing interest in using Large Language Models (LLMs) for educational assessment, it remains unclear how closely they align with human scoring. We present a systematic evaluation of instruction-tuned LLMs across three open essay-scoring datasets (ASAP 2.0, ELLIPSE, and DREsS) that cover both holistic and analytic scoring. We analyze agreement with human consensus scores, directional bias, and the stability of bias estimates. Our results show that strong open-weight models achieve moderate to high agreement with humans on holistic scoring (Quadratic Weighted Kappa about 0.6), but this does not transfer uniformly to analytic scoring. In particular, we observe large and stable negative directional bias on Lower-Order Concern (LOC) traits, such as Grammar and Conventions, meaning that models often score these traits more harshly than human raters. We also find that concise keyword-based prompts generally outperform longer rubric-style prompts in multi-trait analytic scoring. To quantify the amount of data needed to detect these systematic deviations, we compute the minimum sample size at which a 95% bootstrap confidence interval for the mean bias excludes zero. This analysis shows that LOC bias is often detectable with very small validation sets, whereas Higher-Order Concern (HOC) traits typically require much larger samples. These findings support a bias-correction-first deployment strategy: instead of relying on raw zero-shot scores, systematic score offsets can be estimated and corrected using small human-labeled bias-estimation sets, without requiring large-scale fine-tuning.

Filip J. Kucia, Anirban Chakraborty, Anna Wróblewska

Faculty of Mathematics and Information Science, Warsaw University of Technology, 00-662 Warsaw, Poland · University of Wolverhampton, UK

Automated Essay ScoringLanguage Model Bias EvaluationRubric-Based EvaluationPrompt Sensitivity
AskPDF