A key ethical challenge in Automated Essay Scoring (AES) is ensuring that scores are only released when they meet high reliability standards. Confidence modelling addresses this by assigning a reliability estimate measure, in the form of a confidence score, to each automated score. In this study, we frame confidence estimation as a classification task: predicting whether an AES-generated score correctly places a candidate in the appropriate CEFR level. While this is a binary decision, we leverage the inherent granularity of the scoring domain in two ways. First, we reformulate the task as an n-ary classification problem using score binning. Second, we introduce a set of novel Kernel Weighted Ordinal Categorical Cross Entropy (KWOCCE) loss functions that incorporate the ordinal structure of CEFR labels. Our best-performing model achieves an F1 score of 0.97, and enables the system to release 47% of scores with 100% CEFR agreement and 99% with at least 95% CEFR agreement -compared to approximately 92% (approx.) CEFR agreement from the standalone AES model where we release all AM predicted scores.
This study illustrates how incorporating feedback-oriented annotations into the scoring pipeline can enhance the accuracy of automated essay scoring (AES). This approach is demonstrated with the Persuasive Essays for Rating, Selecting, and Understanding Argumentative and Discourse Elements (PERSUADE) corpus. We integrate two types of feedback-driven annotations: those that identify spelling and grammatical errors, and those that highlight argumentative components. To illustrate how this method could be applied in real-world scenarios, we employ two LLMs to generate annotations -- a generative language model used for spell-correction and an encoder-based token classifier trained to identify and mark argumentative elements. By incorporating annotations into the scoring process, we demonstrate improvements in performance using encoder-based large language models fine-tuned as classifiers.
Recent advances in cross-prompt automated essay scoring (AES) typically train models jointly on all source prompts, often requiring additional access to unlabeled target prompt essays simultaneously. However, using all sources is suboptimal in our pilot study, and re-accessing source datasets during adaptation raises privacy concerns. We propose a source-free adaptation approach that selectively merges individually trained source models' parameters instead of datasets. In particular, we simulate joint training through linear combinations of task vectors -- the parameter updates from fine-tuning. To optimize the combination's coefficients, we propose Prior-encoded Information Maximization (PIM), an unsupervised objective which promotes the model's score discriminability regularized by priors pre-computed from the sources. We employ Bayesian optimization as an efficient optimizer of PIM. Experimental results with LLMs on in-dataset and cross-dataset adaptation show that our method (1) consistently outperforms training jointly on all sources, (2) maintains superior robustness compared to other merging methods, (3) excels under severe distribution shifts where recent leading cross-prompt methods struggle, all while retaining computational efficiency.
Research on holistic Automated Essay Scoring (AES) is long-dated; yet, there is a notable lack of attention for assessing essays according to individual traits. In this work, we propose TRATES, a novel trait-specific and rubric-based cross-prompt AES framework that is generic yet specific to the underlying trait. The framework leverages a Large Language Model (LLM) that utilizes the trait grading rubrics to generate trait-specific features (represented by assessment questions), then assesses those features given an essay. The trait-specific features are eventually combined with generic writing-quality and prompt-specific features to train a simple classical regression model that predicts trait scores of essays from an unseen prompt. Experiments show that TRATES achieves a new state-of-the-art performance across all traits on a widely-used dataset, with the generated LLM-based features being the most significant.
Automated Essay Scoring (AES) is crucial for modern education, particularly with the increasing prevalence of multimodal assessments. However, traditional AES methods struggle with evaluation generalizability and multimodal perception, while even recent Multimodal Large Language Model (MLLM)-based approaches can produce hallucinated justifications and scores misaligned with human judgment. To address the limitations, we introduce CAFES, the first collaborative multi-agent framework specifically designed for AES. It orchestrates three specialized agents: an Initial Scorer for rapid, trait-specific evaluations; a Feedback Pool Manager to aggregate detailed, evidence-grounded strengths; and a Reflective Scorer that iteratively refines scores based on this feedback to enhance human alignment. Extensive experiments, using state-of-the-art MLLMs, achieve an average relative improvement of 21% in Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK) against ground truth, especially for grammatical and lexical diversity. Our proposed CAFES framework paves the way for an intelligent multimodal AES system. The code will be available upon acceptance.
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled zero-shot automated essay scoring (AES), providing a promising way to reduce the cost and effort of essay scoring in comparison with manual grading. However, most existing zero-shot approaches rely on LLMs to directly generate absolute scores, which often diverge from human evaluations owing to model biases and inconsistent scoring. To address these limitations, we propose LLM-based Comparative Essay Scoring (LCES), a method that formulates AES as a pairwise comparison task. Specifically, we instruct LLMs to judge which of two essays is better, collect many such comparisons, and convert them into continuous scores. Considering that the number of possible comparisons grows quadratically with the number of essays, we improve scalability by employing RankNet to efficiently transform LLM preferences into scalar scores. Experiments using AES benchmark datasets show that LCES outperforms conventional zero-shot methods in accuracy while maintaining computational efficiency. Moreover, LCES is robust across different LLM backbones, highlighting its applicability to real-world zero-shot AES.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used in Automated Essay Scoring (AES) due to their ability to capture semantic meaning. Traditional fine-tuning approaches required technical expertise, limiting accessibility for educators with limited technical backgrounds. However, prompt-based tools like ChatGPT have made AES more accessible, enabling educators to obtain machine-generated scores using natural-language prompts (i.e., the prompt-based paradigm). Despite advancements, prior studies have shown bias in fine-tuned LLMs, particularly against disadvantaged groups. It remains unclear whether such biases persist or are amplified in the prompt-based paradigm with cutting-edge tools. Since such biases are believed to stem from the demographic information embedded in pre-trained models (i.e., the ability of LLMs' text embeddings to predict demographic attributes), this study explores the relationship between the model's predictive power of students' demographic attributes based on their written works and its predictive bias in the scoring task in the prompt-based paradigm. Using a publicly available dataset of over 25,000 students' argumentative essays, we designed prompts to elicit demographic inferences (i.e., gender, first-language background) from GPT-4o and assessed fairness in automated scoring. Then we conducted multivariate regression analysis to explore the impact of the model's ability to predict demographics on its scoring outcomes. Our findings revealed that (i) prompt-based LLMs can somewhat infer students' demographics, particularly their first-language backgrounds, from their essays; (ii) scoring biases are more pronounced when the LLM correctly predicts students' first-language background than when it does not; and (iii) scoring error for non-native English speakers increases when the LLM correctly identifies them as non-native.
This study investigates the necessity and impact of a detailed rubric in automated essay scoring (AES) using large language models (LLMs). While using rubrics are standard in LLM-based AES, creating detailed rubrics requires substantial ef-fort and increases token usage. We examined how different levels of rubric detail affect scoring accuracy across multiple LLMs using the TOEFL11 dataset. Our experiments compared three conditions: a full rubric, a simplified rubric, and no rubric, using four different LLMs (Claude 3.5 Haiku, Gemini 1.5 Flash, GPT-4o-mini, and Llama 3 70B Instruct). Results showed that three out of four models maintained similar scoring accuracy with the simplified rubric compared to the detailed one, while significantly reducing token usage. However, one model (Gemini 1.5 Flash) showed decreased performance with more detailed rubrics. The findings suggest that simplified rubrics may be sufficient for most LLM-based AES applications, offering a more efficient alternative without compromis-ing scoring accuracy. However, model-specific evaluation remains crucial as per-formance patterns vary across different LLMs.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed various aspects of education, with large language models (LLMs) driving advancements in automated tutoring, assessment, and content generation. However, conventional LLMs are constrained by their reliance on static training data, limited adaptability, and lack of reasoning. To address these limitations and foster more sustainable technological practices, AI agents have emerged as a promising new avenue for educational innovation. In this review, we examine agentic workflows in education according to four major paradigms: reflection, planning, tool use, and multi-agent collaboration. We critically analyze the role of AI agents in education through these key design paradigms, exploring their advantages, applications, and challenges. To illustrate the practical potential of agentic systems, we present a proof-of-concept application: a multi-agent framework for automated essay scoring. Preliminary results suggest this agentic approach may offer improved consistency compared to stand-alone LLMs. Our findings highlight the transformative potential of AI agents in educational settings while underscoring the need for further research into their interpretability, trustworthiness, and sustainable impact on pedagogical impact.
Although Arabic is spoken by over 400 million people, advanced Arabic writing assistance tools remain limited. To address this gap, we present ARWI, a new writing assistant that helps learners improve essay writing in Modern Standard Arabic. ARWI is the first publicly available Arabic writing assistant to include a prompt database for different proficiency levels, an Arabic text editor, state-of-the-art grammatical error detection and correction, and automated essay scoring aligned with the Common European Framework of Reference standards for language attainment. Moreover, ARWI can be used to gather a growing auto-annotated corpus, facilitating further research on Arabic grammar correction and essay scoring, as well as profiling patterns of errors made by native speakers and non-native learners. A preliminary user study shows that ARWI provides actionable feedback, helping learners identify grammatical gaps, assess language proficiency, and guide improvement.
Automated Essay Scoring (AES) plays a crucial role in assessing language learners' writing quality, reducing grading workload, and providing real-time feedback. Arabic AES systems are particularly challenged by the lack of annotated essay datasets. This paper presents a novel framework leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) and Transformers to generate synthetic Arabic essay datasets for AES. We prompt an LLM to generate essays across CEFR proficiency levels and introduce controlled error injection using a fine-tuned Standard Arabic BERT model for error type prediction. Our approach produces realistic human-like essays, contributing a dataset of 3,040 annotated essays. Additionally, we develop a BERT-based auto-marking system for accurate and scalable Arabic essay evaluation. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework in improving Arabic AES performance.
Automated Essay Scoring (AES) plays a crucial role in educational assessment by providing scalable and consistent evaluations of writing tasks. However, traditional AES systems face three major challenges: (1) reliance on handcrafted features that limit generalizability, (2) difficulty in capturing fine-grained traits like coherence and argumentation, and (3) inability to handle multimodal contexts. In the era of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), we propose EssayJudge, the first multimodal benchmark to evaluate AES capabilities across lexical-, sentence-, and discourse-level traits. By leveraging MLLMs' strengths in trait-specific scoring and multimodal context understanding, EssayJudge aims to offer precise, context-rich evaluations without manual feature engineering, addressing longstanding AES limitations. Our experiments with 18 representative MLLMs reveal gaps in AES performance compared to human evaluation, particularly in discourse-level traits, highlighting the need for further advancements in MLLM-based AES research.
This research assesses the effectiveness of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs), including ChatGPT, Llama, Aya, Jais, and ACEGPT, in the task of Arabic automated essay scoring (AES) using the AR-AES dataset. It explores various evaluation methodologies, including zero-shot, few-shot in-context learning, and fine-tuning, and examines the influence of instruction-following capabilities through the inclusion of marking guidelines within the prompts. A mixed-language prompting strategy, integrating English prompts with Arabic content, was implemented to improve model comprehension and performance. Among the models tested, ACEGPT demonstrated the strongest performance across the dataset, achieving a Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK) of 0.67, but was outperformed by a smaller BERT-based model with a QWK of 0.88. The study identifies challenges faced by LLMs in processing Arabic, including tokenization complexities and higher computational demands. Performance variation across different courses underscores the need for adaptive models capable of handling diverse assessment formats and highlights the positive impact of effective prompt engineering on improving LLM outputs. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to empirically evaluate the performance of multiple generative Large Language Models (LLMs) on Arabic essays using authentic student data.
We show that current open-source foundational LLMs possess instruction capability and German legal background knowledge that is sufficient for some legal analysis in an educational context. However, model capability breaks down in very specific tasks, such as the classification of "Gutachtenstil" appraisal style components, or with complex contexts, such as complete legal opinions. Even with extended context and effective prompting strategies, they cannot match the Bag-of-Words baseline. To combat this, we introduce a Retrieval Augmented Generation based prompt example selection method that substantially improves predictions in high data availability scenarios. We further evaluate the performance of pre-trained LLMs on two standard tasks for argument mining and automated essay scoring and find it to be more adequate. Throughout, pre-trained LLMs improve upon the baseline in scenarios with little or no labeled data with Chain-of-Thought prompting further helping in the zero-shot case.
This study investigates the impact of example selection on the performance of au-tomated essay scoring (AES) using few-shot prompting with GPT models. We evaluate the effects of the choice and order of examples in few-shot prompting on several versions of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models. Our experiments involve 119 prompts with different examples, and we calculate the quadratic weighted kappa (QWK) to measure the agreement between GPT and human rater scores. Regres-sion analysis is used to quantitatively assess biases introduced by example selec-tion. The results show that the impact of example selection on QWK varies across models, with GPT-3.5 being more influenced by examples than GPT-4. We also find evidence of majority label bias, which is a tendency to favor the majority la-bel among the examples, and recency bias, which is a tendency to favor the label of the most recent example, in GPT-generated essay scores and QWK, with these biases being more pronounced in GPT-3.5. Notably, careful example selection enables GPT-3.5 models to outperform some GPT-4 models. However, among the GPT models, the June 2023 version of GPT-4, which is not the latest model, exhibits the highest stability and performance. Our findings provide insights into the importance of example selection in few-shot prompting for AES, especially in GPT-3.5 models, and highlight the need for individual performance evaluations of each model, even for minor versions.
Automated essay scoring (AES) is a useful tool in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing education, offering real-time essay scores for students and instructors. However, previous AES models were trained on essays and scores irrelevant to the practical scenarios of EFL writing education and usually provided a single holistic score due to the lack of appropriate datasets. In this paper, we release DREsS, a large-scale, standard dataset for rubric-based automated essay scoring. DREsS comprises three sub-datasets: DREsS_New, DREsS_Std., and DREsS_CASE. We collect DREsS_New, a real-classroom dataset with 2.3K essays authored by EFL undergraduate students and scored by English education experts. We also standardize existing rubric-based essay scoring datasets as DREsS_Std. We suggest CASE, a corruption-based augmentation strategy for essays, which generates 40.1K synthetic samples of DREsS_CASE and improves the baseline results by 45.44%. DREsS will enable further research to provide a more accurate and practical AES system for EFL writing education.
Existing automated essay scoring (AES) has solely relied on essay text without using explanatory rationales for the scores, thereby forgoing an opportunity to capture the specific aspects evaluated by rubric indicators in a fine-grained manner. This paper introduces Rationale-based Multiple Trait Scoring (RMTS), a novel approach for multi-trait essay scoring that integrates prompt-engineering-based large language models (LLMs) with a fine-tuning-based essay scoring model using a smaller large language model (S-LLM). RMTS uses an LLM-based trait-wise rationale generation system where a separate LLM agent generates trait-specific rationales based on rubric guidelines, which the scoring model uses to accurately predict multi-trait scores. Extensive experiments on benchmark datasets, including ASAP, ASAP++, and Feedback Prize, show that RMTS significantly outperforms state-of-the-art models and vanilla S-LLMs in trait-specific scoring. By assisting quantitative assessment with fine-grained qualitative rationales, RMTS enhances the trait-wise reliability, providing partial explanations about essays.
Recent advances in automated essay scoring (AES) have shifted towards evaluating multiple traits to provide enriched feedback. Like typical AES systems, multi-trait AES employs the quadratic weighted kappa (QWK) to measure agreement with human raters, aligning closely with the rating schema; however, its non-differentiable nature prevents its direct use in neural network training. In this paper, we propose Scoring-aware Multi-reward Reinforcement Learning (SaMRL), which integrates actual evaluation schemes into the training process by designing QWK-based rewards with a mean-squared error penalty for multi-trait AES. Existing reinforcement learning (RL) applications in AES are limited to classification models despite associated performance degradation, as RL requires probability distributions; instead, we adopt an autoregressive score generation framework to leverage token generation probabilities for robust multi-trait score predictions. Empirical analyses demonstrate that SaMRL facilitates model training, notably enhancing scoring of previously inferior prompts.
We evaluate the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in assessing essay quality, focusing on their alignment with human grading. More precisely, we evaluate ChatGPT and Llama in the Automated Essay Scoring (AES) task, a crucial natural language processing (NLP) application in Education. We consider both zero-shot and few-shot learning and different prompting approaches. We compare the numeric grade provided by the LLMs to human rater-provided scores utilizing the ASAP dataset, a well-known benchmark for the AES task. Our research reveals that both LLMs generally assign lower scores compared to those provided by the human raters; moreover, those scores do not correlate well with those provided by the humans. In particular, ChatGPT tends to be harsher and further misaligned with human evaluations than Llama. We also experiment with a number of essay features commonly used by previous AES methods, related to length, usage of connectives and transition words, and readability metrics, including the number of spelling and grammar mistakes. We find that, generally, none of these features correlates strongly with human or LLM scores. Finally, we report results on Llama 3, which are generally better across the board, as expected. Overall, while LLMs do not seem an adequate replacement for human grading, our results are somewhat encouraging for their use as a tool to assist humans in the grading of written essays in the future.
Automated Essay Scoring (AES) holds significant promise in the field of education, helping educators to mark larger volumes of essays and provide timely feedback. However, Arabic AES research has been limited by the lack of publicly available essay data. This study introduces AR-AES, an Arabic AES benchmark dataset comprising 2046 undergraduate essays, including gender information, scores, and transparent rubric-based evaluation guidelines, providing comprehensive insights into the scoring process. These essays come from four diverse courses, covering both traditional and online exams. Additionally, we pioneer the use of AraBERT for AES, exploring its performance on different question types. We find encouraging results, particularly for Environmental Chemistry and source-dependent essay questions. For the first time, we examine the scale of errors made by a BERT-based AES system, observing that 96.15 percent of the errors are within one point of the first human marker's prediction, on a scale of one to five, with 79.49 percent of predictions matching exactly. In contrast, additional human markers did not exceed 30 percent exact matches with the first marker, with 62.9 percent within one mark. These findings highlight the subjectivity inherent in essay grading, and underscore the potential for current AES technology to assist human markers to grade consistently across large classes.