NOW LET US – AI RAG SaaS Studio TP.HCM
NOW LET US
Digital Product Studio
Back to news
AGENTIC-SYSTEMS...1 min read

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

Share
NOW LET US Article – LLM Essay Scoring Under Holistic and Analytic Rubrics: Prompt Effects and Bias

A systematic evaluation reveals that LLMs often score grammar and conventions more harshly than human raters, suggesting a 'bias-correction-first' deployment strategy using small human-labeled datasets.

Computer Science > Computation and Language

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

View PDF HTML (experimental)Abstract: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.

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

Demos

Recommenders and Search Tools

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

© 2026 Now Let Us. All rights reserved.

Source: arXiv cs.AI Recent

Advertisement
Ad slot ready: 5887729102

More in this category

EXPLORE TOPICS

Discover All Categories

Deep dive into the specific technology sectors that matter most to you.