Comparison of Scoring Rationales Between Large Language Models and Human Raters

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.23412v1
• Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2025 16:58:51 GMT
• Title: Comparison of Scoring Rationales Between Large Language Models and Human Raters
• Authors: Haowei Hua, Hong Jiao, Dan Song,
• Abstract summary: This study investigates the rationales of human and LLM raters to identify potential causes of scoring inconsistency.<n>Using essays from a large-scale test, the scoring accuracy of GPT-4o, Gemini, and other LLMs is examined.<n>Cosine similarity is used to evaluate the similarity of the rationales provided.
• Score: 3.4283859937936705
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Advances in automated scoring are closely aligned with advances in machine-learning and natural-language-processing techniques. With recent progress in large language models (LLMs), the use of ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and other generative-AI chatbots for automated scoring has been explored. Given their strong reasoning capabilities, LLMs can also produce rationales to support the scores they assign. Thus, evaluating the rationales provided by both human and LLM raters can help improve the understanding of the reasoning that each type of rater applies when assigning a score. This study investigates the rationales of human and LLM raters to identify potential causes of scoring inconsistency. Using essays from a large-scale test, the scoring accuracy of GPT-4o, Gemini, and other LLMs is examined based on quadratic weighted kappa and normalized mutual information. Cosine similarity is used to evaluate the similarity of the rationales provided. In addition, clustering patterns in rationales are explored using principal component analysis based on the embeddings of the rationales. The findings of this study provide insights into the accuracy and ``thinking'' of LLMs in automated scoring, helping to improve the understanding of the rationales behind both human scoring and LLM-based automated scoring.

Related papers

• Skewed Score: A statistical framework to assess autograders [2.9645858732618238]
  "LLM-as-a-judge", or autograders, offer a scalable alternative to human evaluation.<n>They have shown mixed reliability and may exhibit systematic biases.<n>We propose a statistical framework that enables researchers to simultaneously assess their autograders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-04T18:45:10Z)
• Teach-to-Reason with Scoring: Self-Explainable Rationale-Driven Multi-Trait Essay Scoring [5.632624116225276]
  Multi-trait automated essay scoring (AES) systems provide a fine-grained evaluation of an essay's diverse aspects.<n>Prior systems fail to explain why specific trait scores are assigned.<n>We propose a self-explainable Rationale-Driven Multi-trait automated Essay scoring framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T05:54:23Z)
• SedarEval: Automated Evaluation using Self-Adaptive Rubrics [4.97150240417381]
  We propose a new evaluation paradigm based on self-adaptive rubrics.<n>SedarEval consists of 1,000 meticulously crafted questions, each with its own self-adaptive rubric.<n>We train a specialized evaluator language model (evaluator LM) to supplant human graders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-26T16:45:09Z)
• Unveiling Scoring Processes: Dissecting the Differences between LLMs and Human Graders in Automatic Scoring [21.7782670140939]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong potential in performing automatic scoring for constructed response assessments.<n>While constructed responses graded by humans are usually based on given grading rubrics, the methods by which LLMs assign scores remain largely unclear.<n>This paper uncovers the grading rubrics that LLMs used to score students' written responses to science tasks and their alignment with human scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-04T22:26:20Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used to automate decision-making tasks.<n>In this paper, we evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention.<n>We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types.<n>These benchmarks allow us to isolate the ability of LLMs to accurately predict changes resulting from their ability to memorize facts or find other shortcuts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• LogicAsker: Evaluating and Improving the Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models [63.14196038655506]
  We introduce LogicAsker, a novel approach for evaluating and enhancing the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) Our methodology reveals significant gaps in LLMs' learning of logical rules, with identified reasoning failures ranging from 29% to 90% across different models. We leverage these findings to construct targeted demonstration examples and fine-tune data, notably enhancing logical reasoning in models like GPT-4o by up to 5%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-01T13:53:53Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• Using Natural Language Explanations to Rescale Human Judgments [81.66697572357477]
  We propose a method to rescale ordinal annotations and explanations using large language models (LLMs)<n>We feed annotators' Likert ratings and corresponding explanations into an LLM and prompt it to produce a numeric score anchored in a scoring rubric.<n>Our method rescales the raw judgments without impacting agreement and brings the scores closer to human judgments grounded in the same scoring rubric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:19:14Z)
• ROSCOE: A Suite of Metrics for Scoring Step-by-Step Reasoning [63.77667876176978]
  Large language models show improved downstream task interpretability when prompted to generate step-by-step reasoning to justify their final answers. These reasoning steps greatly improve model interpretability and verification, but objectively studying their correctness is difficult. We present ROS, a suite of interpretable, unsupervised automatic scores that improve and extend previous text generation evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-15T15:52:39Z)

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.