Beyond the Score: Uncertainty-Calibrated LLMs for Automated Essay Assessment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.15926v1
• Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2025 12:28:50 GMT
• Title: Beyond the Score: Uncertainty-Calibrated LLMs for Automated Essay Assessment
• Authors: Ahmed Karim, Qiao Wang, Zheng Yuan,
• Abstract summary: This work combines conformal prediction and UAcc for essay scoring.<n> Reliability is assessed with UAcc, an uncertainty-aware accuracy that rewards models for being both correct and concise.<n>Open-source, mid-sized LLMs can already support teacher-in-the-loop AES.
• Score: 11.525382140783043
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Automated Essay Scoring (AES) systems now reach near human agreement on some public benchmarks, yet real-world adoption, especially in high-stakes examinations, remains limited. A principal obstacle is that most models output a single score without any accompanying measure of confidence or explanation. We address this gap with conformal prediction, a distribution-free wrapper that equips any classifier with set-valued outputs and formal coverage guarantees. Two open-source large language models (Llama-3 8B and Qwen-2.5 3B) are fine-tuned on three diverse corpora (ASAP, TOEFL11, Cambridge-FCE) and calibrated at a 90 percent risk level. Reliability is assessed with UAcc, an uncertainty-aware accuracy that rewards models for being both correct and concise. To our knowledge, this is the first work to combine conformal prediction and UAcc for essay scoring. The calibrated models consistently meet the coverage target while keeping prediction sets compact, indicating that open-source, mid-sized LLMs can already support teacher-in-the-loop AES; we discuss scaling and broader user studies as future work.

Related papers

• On Calibration of Large Language Models: From Response To Capability [66.59139960234326]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely deployed as general-purpose problem solvers.<n>We introduce capability calibration, which targets the model's expected accuracy on a query.<n>Our results demonstrate that capability-calibrated confidence improves pass@$k$ prediction and inference budget allocation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-14T01:07:45Z)
• Context-Adaptive Requirements Defect Prediction through Human-LLM Collaboration [1.4499356176178066]
  We propose a Human-LLM Collaboration (HLC) approach that treats defect prediction as an adaptive process rather than a static classification task.<n>We evaluate this approach using the weak word smell on the QuRE benchmark of 1,266 annotated Mercedes-Benz requirements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-05T10:00:14Z)
• Rubric-Conditioned LLM Grading: Alignment, Uncertainty, and Robustness [4.129847064263056]
  We systematically evaluate the performance of Large Language Models for rubric-based short-answer grading.<n>We find that alignment is strong for binary tasks but degrades with increased rubric granularity.<n>Experiments reveal that while the model is resilient to prompt injection, it is sensitive to synonym substitutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-21T05:22:04Z)
• Judging with Confidence: Calibrating Autoraters to Preference Distributions [56.17041629492863]
  We argue that a reliable autorater must learn to model the full distribution of preferences defined by a target population.<n>We present two learning methods tailored to different data conditions.<n>Our results show that finetuning autoraters with a distribution-matching objective leads to verbalized probability predictions that are better aligned with the target preference distribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T20:36:41Z)
• Can Large Language Models Express Uncertainty Like Human? [71.27418419522884]
  We release the first diverse, large-scale dataset of hedging expressions with human-annotated confidence scores.<n>We conduct the first systematic study of linguistic confidence across modern large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T02:34:30Z)
• Clotho: Measuring Task-Specific Pre-Generation Test Adequacy for LLM Inputs [6.862079218077768]
  Testing Large Language Models on specific tasks is difficult and costly.<n>A key challenge is to assess input adequacy in a way that reflects the demands of the task.<n>We introduce CLOTHO, a task-specific, pre-generation adequacy measure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-22T02:34:09Z)
• Data-Driven Calibration of Prediction Sets in Large Vision-Language Models Based on Inductive Conformal Prediction [0.0]
  We propose a model-agnostic uncertainty quantification method that integrates dynamic threshold calibration and cross-modal consistency verification.<n>We show that the framework achieves stable performance across varying calibration-to-test split ratios, underscoring its robustness for real-world deployment in healthcare, autonomous systems, and other safety-sensitive domains.<n>This work bridges the gap between theoretical reliability and practical applicability in multi-modal AI systems, offering a scalable solution for hallucination detection and uncertainty-aware decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-24T15:39:46Z)
• PredictaBoard: Benchmarking LLM Score Predictability [50.47497036981544]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often fail unpredictably.<n>This poses a significant challenge to ensuring their safe deployment.<n>We present PredictaBoard, a novel collaborative benchmarking framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T10:52:38Z)
• Learning Conformal Abstention Policies for Adaptive Risk Management in Large Language and Vision-Language Models [3.958317527488534]
  Large Language and Vision-Language Models (LLMs/VLMs) are increasingly used in safety-critical applications.<n>Uncertainty quantification helps assess prediction confidence and enables abstention when uncertainty is high.<n>We propose learnable abstention, integrating reinforcement learning (RL) with Conformal Prediction (CP) to optimize abstention thresholds.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-08T21:30:41Z)
• Identifying and Mitigating Social Bias Knowledge in Language Models [52.52955281662332]
  We propose a novel debiasing approach, Fairness Stamp (FAST), which enables fine-grained calibration of individual social biases.<n>FAST surpasses state-of-the-art baselines with superior debiasing performance.<n>This highlights the potential of fine-grained debiasing strategies to achieve fairness in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T17:14:58Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• TeLeS: Temporal Lexeme Similarity Score to Estimate Confidence in End-to-End ASR [1.8477401359673709]
  Class-probability-based confidence scores do not accurately represent quality of overconfident ASR predictions. We propose a novel Temporal-Lexeme Similarity (TeLeS) confidence score to train Confidence Estimation Model (CEM) We conduct experiments with ASR models trained in three languages, namely Hindi, Tamil, and Kannada, with varying training data sizes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-06T16:29:13Z)
• Equal Opportunity of Coverage in Fair Regression [50.76908018786335]
  We study fair machine learning (ML) under predictive uncertainty to enable reliable and trustworthy decision-making. We propose Equal Opportunity of Coverage (EOC) that aims to achieve two properties: (1) coverage rates for different groups with similar outcomes are close, and (2) the coverage rate for the entire population remains at a predetermined level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T21:19:59Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.