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.

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.

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.