Optimizing In-Context Demonstrations for LLM-based Automated Grading

Automated assessment of open-ended student responses is a critical capability for scaling personalized feedback in education. While large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in grading tasks via in-context learning (ICL), their reliability is heavily dependent on the selection of few-shot exemplars and the construction of high-quality rationales. Standard retrieval methods typically select examples based on semantic similarity, which often fails to capture subtle decision boundaries required for rubric adherence. Furthermore, manually crafting the expert rationales needed to guide these models can be a significant bottleneck. To address these limitations, we introduce GUIDE (Grading Using Iteratively Designed Exemplars), a framework that reframes exemplar selection and refinement in automated grading as a boundary-focused optimization problem. GUIDE operates on a continuous loop of selection and refinement, employing novel contrastive operators to identify "boundary pairs" that are semantically similar but possess different grades. We enhance exemplars by generating discriminative rationales that explicitly articulate why a response receives a specific score to the exclusion of adjacent grades. Extensive experiments across datasets in physics, chemistry, and pedagogical content knowledge demonstrate that GUIDE significantly outperforms standard retrieval baselines. By focusing the model's attention on the precise edges of rubric, our approach shows exceptionally robust gains on borderline cases and improved rubric adherence. GUIDE paves the way for trusted, scalable assessment systems that align closely with human pedagogical standards.

Confusion-Aware Rubric Optimization for LLM-based Automated Grading

Accurate and unambiguous guidelines are critical for large language model (LLM) based graders, yet manually crafting these prompts is often sub-optimal as LLMs can misinterpret expert guidelines or lack necessary domain specificity. Consequently, the field has moved toward automated prompt optimization to refine grading guidelines without the burden of manual trial and error. However, existing frameworks typically aggregate independent and unstructured error samples into a single update step, resulting in "rule dilution" where conflicting constraints weaken the model's grading logic. To address these limitations, we introduce Confusion-Aware Rubric Optimization (CARO), a novel framework that enhances accuracy and computational efficiency by structurally separating error signals. CARO leverages the confusion matrix to decompose monolithic error signals into distinct modes, allowing for the diagnosis and repair of specific misclassification patterns individually. By synthesizing targeted "fixing patches" for dominant error modes and employing a diversity-aware selection mechanism, the framework prevents guidance conflict and eliminates the need for resource-heavy nested refinement loops. Empirical evaluations on teacher education and STEM datasets demonstrate that CARO significantly outperforms existing SOTA methods. These results suggest that replacing mixed-error aggregation with surgical, mode-specific repair yields robust improvements in automated assessment scalability and precision.

How Uncertain Is the Grade? A Benchmark of Uncertainty Metrics for LLM-Based Automatic Assessment

The rapid rise of large language models (LLMs) is reshaping the landscape of automatic assessment in education. While these systems demonstrate substantial advantages in adaptability to diverse question types and flexibility in output formats, they also introduce new challenges related to output uncertainty, stemming from the inherently probabilistic nature of LLMs. Output uncertainty is an inescapable challenge in automatic assessment, as assessment results often play a critical role in informing subsequent pedagogical actions, such as providing feedback to students or guiding instructional decisions. Unreliable or poorly calibrated uncertainty estimates can lead to unstable downstream interventions, potentially disrupting students' learning processes and resulting in unintended negative consequences. To systematically understand this challenge and inform future research, we benchmark a broad range of uncertainty quantification methods in the context of LLM-based automatic assessment. Although the effectiveness of these methods has been demonstrated in many tasks across other domains, their applicability and reliability in educational settings, particularly for automatic grading, remain underexplored. Through comprehensive analyses of uncertainty behaviors across multiple assessment datasets, LLM families, and generation control settings, we characterize the uncertainty patterns exhibited by LLMs in grading scenarios. Based on these findings, we evaluate the strengths and limitations of different uncertainty metrics and analyze the influence of key factors, including model families, assessment tasks, and decoding strategies, on uncertainty estimates. Our study provides actionable insights into the characteristics of uncertainty in LLM-based automatic assessment and lays the groundwork for developing more reliable and effective uncertainty-aware grading systems in the future.

Exploring Solution Divergence and Its Effect on Large Language Model Problem Solving

Large language models (LLMs) have been widely used for problem-solving tasks. Most recent work improves their performance through supervised fine-tuning (SFT) with labeled data or reinforcement learning (RL) from task feedback. In this paper, we study a new perspective: the divergence in solutions generated by LLMs for a single problem. We show that higher solution divergence is positively related to better problem-solving abilities across various models. Based on this finding, we propose solution divergence as a novel metric that can support both SFT and RL strategies. We test this idea on three representative problem domains and find that using solution divergence consistently improves success rates. These results suggest that solution divergence is a simple but effective tool for advancing LLM training and evaluation.

Enhancing LLM-Based Short Answer Grading with Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Short answer assessment is a vital component of science education, allowing evaluation of students' complex three-dimensional understanding. Large language models (LLMs) that possess human-like ability in linguistic tasks are increasingly popular in assisting human graders to reduce their workload. However, LLMs' limitations in domain knowledge restrict their understanding in task-specific requirements and hinder their ability to achieve satisfactory performance. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) emerges as a promising solution by enabling LLMs to access relevant domain-specific knowledge during assessment. In this work, we propose an adaptive RAG framework for automated grading that dynamically retrieves and incorporates domain-specific knowledge based on the question and student answer context. Our approach combines semantic search and curated educational sources to retrieve valuable reference materials. Experimental results in a science education dataset demonstrate that our system achieves an improvement in grading accuracy compared to baseline LLM approaches. The findings suggest that RAG-enhanced grading systems can serve as reliable support with efficient performance gains.

LLM-based Automated Grading with Human-in-the-Loop

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, particularly large language models (LLMs), has brought significant advancements to the field of education. Among various applications, automatic short answer grading (ASAG), which focuses on evaluating open-ended textual responses, has seen remarkable progress with the introduction of LLMs. These models not only enhance grading performance compared to traditional ASAG approaches but also move beyond simple comparisons with predefined "golden" answers, enabling more sophisticated grading scenarios, such as rubric-based evaluation. However, existing LLM-powered methods still face challenges in achieving human-level grading performance in rubric-based assessments due to their reliance on fully automated approaches. In this work, we explore the potential of LLMs in ASAG tasks by leveraging their interactive capabilities through a human-in-the-loop (HITL) approach. Our proposed framework, GradeHITL, utilizes the generative properties of LLMs to pose questions to human experts, incorporating their insights to refine grading rubrics dynamically. This adaptive process significantly improves grading accuracy, outperforming existing methods and bringing ASAG closer to human-level evaluation.

Unpacking Political Bias in Large Language Models: Insights Across Topic Polarization

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been widely used to generate responses on social topics due to their world knowledge and generative capabilities. Beyond reasoning and generation performance, political bias is an essential issue that warrants attention. Political bias, as a universal phenomenon in human society, may be transferred to LLMs and distort LLMs' behaviors of information acquisition and dissemination with humans, leading to unequal access among different groups of people. To prevent LLMs from reproducing and reinforcing political biases, and to encourage fairer LLM-human interactions, comprehensively examining political bias in popular LLMs becomes urgent and crucial. In this study, we systematically measure the political biases in a wide range of LLMs, using a curated set of questions addressing political bias in various contexts. Our findings reveal distinct patterns in how LLMs respond to political topics. For highly polarized topics, most LLMs exhibit a pronounced left-leaning bias. Conversely, less polarized topics elicit greater consensus, with similar response patterns across different LLMs. Additionally, we analyze how LLM characteristics, including release date, model scale, and region of origin affect political bias. The results indicate political biases evolve with model scale and release date, and are also influenced by regional factors of LLMs.

Ask-Before-Detection: Identifying and Mitigating Conformity Bias in LLM-Powered Error Detector for Math Word Problem Solutions

The rise of large language models (LLMs) offers new opportunities for automatic error detection in education, particularly for math word problems (MWPs). While prior studies demonstrate the promise of LLMs as error detectors, they overlook the presence of multiple valid solutions for a single MWP. Our preliminary analysis reveals a significant performance gap between conventional and alternative solutions in MWPs, a phenomenon we term conformity bias in this work. To mitigate this bias, we introduce the Ask-Before-Detect (AskBD) framework, which generates adaptive reference solutions using LLMs to enhance error detection. Experiments on 200 examples of GSM8K show that AskBD effectively mitigates bias and improves performance, especially when combined with reasoning-enhancing techniques like chain-of-thought prompting.

A LLM-Powered Automatic Grading Framework with Human-Level Guidelines Optimization

Open-ended short-answer questions (SAGs) have been widely recognized as a powerful tool for providing deeper insights into learners' responses in the context of learning analytics (LA). However, SAGs often present challenges in practice due to the high grading workload and concerns about inconsistent assessments. With recent advancements in natural language processing (NLP), automatic short-answer grading (ASAG) offers a promising solution to these challenges. Despite this, current ASAG algorithms are often limited in generalizability and tend to be tailored to specific questions. In this paper, we propose a unified multi-agent ASAG framework, GradeOpt, which leverages large language models (LLMs) as graders for SAGs. More importantly, GradeOpt incorporates two additional LLM-based agents - the reflector and the refiner - into the multi-agent system. This enables GradeOpt to automatically optimize the original grading guidelines by performing self-reflection on its errors. Through experiments on a challenging ASAG task, namely the grading of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and content knowledge (CK) questions, GradeOpt demonstrates superior performance in grading accuracy and behavior alignment with human graders compared to representative baselines. Finally, comprehensive ablation studies confirm the effectiveness of the individual components designed in GradeOpt.

Augment with Care: Enhancing Graph Contrastive Learning with Selective Spectrum Perturbation

In recent years, Graph Contrastive Learning (GCL) has shown remarkable effectiveness in learning representations on graphs. As a component of GCL, good augmentation views are supposed to be invariant to the important information while discarding the unimportant part. Existing augmentation views with perturbed graph structures are usually based on random topology corruption in the spatial domain; however, from perspectives of the spectral domain, this approach may be ineffective as it fails to pose tailored impacts on the information of different frequencies, thus weakening the agreement between the augmentation views. By a preliminary experiment, we show that the impacts caused by spatial random perturbation are approximately evenly distributed among frequency bands, which may harm the invariance of augmentations required by contrastive learning frameworks. To address this issue, we argue that the perturbation should be selectively posed on the information concerning different frequencies. In this paper, we propose GASSER which poses tailored perturbation on the specific frequencies of graph structures in spectral domain, and the edge perturbation is selectively guided by the spectral hints. As shown by extensive experiments and theoretical analysis, the augmentation views are adaptive and controllable, as well as heuristically fitting the homophily ratios and spectrum of graph structures.