Activations as Features: Probing LLMs for Generalizable Essay Scoring Representations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.19456v1
• Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2025 15:01:07 GMT
• Title: Activations as Features: Probing LLMs for Generalizable Essay Scoring Representations
• Authors: Jinwei Chi, Ke Wang, Yu Chen, Xuanye Lin, Qiang Xu,
• Abstract summary: We evaluate the discriminative power of large language models' activations in cross-prompt essay scoring task.<n>Results show that the activations possess strong discriminative power in evaluating essay quality.
• Score: 8.332035939817976
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Automated essay scoring (AES) is a challenging task in cross-prompt settings due to the diversity of scoring criteria. While previous studies have focused on the output of large language models (LLMs) to improve scoring accuracy, we believe activations from intermediate layers may also provide valuable information. To explore this possibility, we evaluated the discriminative power of LLMs' activations in cross-prompt essay scoring task. Specifically, we used activations to fit probes and further analyzed the effects of different models and input content of LLMs on this discriminative power. By computing the directions of essays across various trait dimensions under different prompts, we analyzed the variation in evaluation perspectives of large language models concerning essay types and traits. Results show that the activations possess strong discriminative power in evaluating essay quality and that LLMs can adapt their evaluation perspectives to different traits and essay types, effectively handling the diversity of scoring criteria in cross-prompt settings.

Related papers

• Investigating the Effects of Cognitive Biases in Prompts on Large Language Model Outputs [3.7302076138352205]
  This paper investigates the influence of cognitive biases on Large Language Models (LLMs) outputs.<n> cognitive biases, such as confirmation and availability biases, can distort user inputs through prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-14T04:18:34Z)
• No LLM is Free From Bias: A Comprehensive Study of Bias Evaluation in Large Language Models [0.9620910657090186]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have increased the performance of different natural language understanding as well as generation tasks.<n>We provide a unified evaluation of benchmarks using a set of representative small and medium-sized LLMs.<n>We propose five prompting approaches to carry out the bias detection task across different aspects of bias.<n>The results indicate that each of the selected LLMs suffer from one or the other form of bias with the Phi-3.5B model being the least biased.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-15T03:58:14Z)
• EssayJudge: A Multi-Granular Benchmark for Assessing Automated Essay Scoring Capabilities of Multimodal Large Language Models [19.271790170055375]
  EssayJudge offers precise, context-rich evaluations without manual feature engineering, addressing longstanding AES limitations.<n>Our experiments with 18 representative MLLMs reveal gaps in AES performance compared to human evaluation, particularly in discourse-level traits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T15:31:59Z)
• Strategic Prompting for Conversational Tasks: A Comparative Analysis of Large Language Models Across Diverse Conversational Tasks [23.34710429552906]
  We evaluate the capabilities and limitations of five prevalent Large Language Models: Llama, OPT, Falcon, Alpaca, and MPT.<n>The study encompasses various conversational tasks, including reservation, empathetic response generation, mental health and legal counseling, persuasion, and negotiation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-26T08:21:24Z)
• Hate Personified: Investigating the role of LLMs in content moderation [64.26243779985393]
  For subjective tasks such as hate detection, where people perceive hate differently, the Large Language Model's (LLM) ability to represent diverse groups is unclear. By including additional context in prompts, we analyze LLM's sensitivity to geographical priming, persona attributes, and numerical information to assess how well the needs of various groups are reflected.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T16:43:17Z)
• Do Large Language Models Possess Sensitive to Sentiment? [18.88126980975737]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently displayed their extraordinary capabilities in language understanding.<n>This paper investigates the ability of LLMs to detect and react to sentiment in text modal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-04T01:40:20Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models with Psychometrics [59.821829073478376]
  This paper offers a comprehensive benchmark for quantifying psychological constructs of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Our work identifies five key psychological constructs -- personality, values, emotional intelligence, theory of mind, and self-efficacy -- assessed through a suite of 13 datasets.<n>We uncover significant discrepancies between LLMs' self-reported traits and their response patterns in real-world scenarios, revealing complexities in their behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T16:09:08Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.<n>The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.<n>We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Sentiment Analysis in the Era of Large Language Models: A Reality Check [69.97942065617664]
  This paper investigates the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in performing various sentiment analysis tasks. We evaluate performance across 13 tasks on 26 datasets and compare the results against small language models (SLMs) trained on domain-specific datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T10:45:25Z)

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.