Machine-Assisted Grading of Nationwide School-Leaving Essay Exams with LLMs and Statistical NLP

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.16314v1
• Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2026 20:44:39 GMT
• Title: Machine-Assisted Grading of Nationwide School-Leaving Essay Exams with LLMs and Statistical NLP
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) enable rapid and consistent automated evaluation of open-ended exam responses.<n>We operationalize the official curriculum-based rubric and compare LLM and statistical natural language processing (NLP) based assessments with human panel scores.<n>Results show that automated scoring can achieve performance comparable to that of human raters and tends to fall within the human scoring range.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) enable rapid and consistent automated evaluation of open-ended exam responses, including dimensions of content and argumentation that have traditionally required human judgment. This is particularly important in cases where a large amount of exams need to be graded in a limited time frame, such as nation-wide graduation exams in various countries. Here, we examine the applicability of automated scoring on two large datasets of trial exam essays of two full national cohorts from Estonia. We operationalize the official curriculum-based rubric and compare LLM and statistical natural language processing (NLP) based assessments with human panel scores. The results show that automated scoring can achieve performance comparable to that of human raters and tends to fall within the human scoring range. We also evaluate bias, prompt injection risks, and LLMs as essay writers. These findings demonstrate that a principled, rubric-driven, human-in-the-loop scoring pipeline is viable for high-stakes writing assessment, particularly relevant for digitally advanced societies like Estonia, which is about to adapt a fully electronic examination system. Furthermore, the system produces fine-grained subscore profiles that can be used to generate systematic, personalized feedback for instruction and exam preparation. The study provides evidence that LLM-assisted assessment can be implemented at a national scale, even in a small-language context, while maintaining human oversight and compliance with emerging educational and regulatory standards.

Related papers

• Human-Grounded Multimodal Benchmark with 900K-Scale Aggregated Student Response Distributions from Japan's National Assessment of Academic Ability [15.624747496258173]
  We present a dataset constructed from Japan's National Assessment of Academic Ability.<n>Unlike existing benchmarks based on synthetic or curated data, our dataset preserves real exam layouts, diagrams, and Japanese educational text.<n>These features enable direct comparison between human and model performance under a unified evaluation framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-12T07:22:50Z)
• Evaluating AI Grading on Real-World Handwritten College Mathematics: A Large-Scale Study Toward a Benchmark [9.922581736690159]
  We present a large-scale empirical study of AI grading on real, handwritten calculus work from UC Irvine.<n>Using OCR-conditioned large language models with structured, rubric-guided prompting, our system produces scores and formative feedback for thousands of free-response quiz submissions.<n>In a setting with no single ground-truth label, we evaluate performance against official teaching-assistant grades, student surveys, and independent human review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-01T03:32:51Z)
• Automatic Legal Writing Evaluation of LLMs [10.74636407144071]
  oab-bench is a benchmark comprising 105 questions across seven areas of law from recent editions of the exam.<n>Claude-3.5 Sonnet achieves the best results with an average score of 7.93 out of 10, passing all 21 exams.<n>Our experiments show that frontier models like OpenAI's o1 achieve a strong correlation with human scores when evaluating approved exams.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-29T22:16:39Z)
• AI-generated Essays: Characteristics and Implications on Automated Scoring and Academic Integrity [13.371946973050845]
  We examine and benchmark the characteristics and quality of essays generated by popular large language models (LLMs)<n>Our findings highlight limitations in existing automated scoring systems, and identify areas for improvement.<n>Despite concerns that the increasing variety of LLMs may undermine the feasibility of detecting AI-generated essays, our results show that detectors trained on essays generated from one model can often identify texts from others with high accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-22T21:30:58Z)
• Auto-PRE: An Automatic and Cost-Efficient Peer-Review Framework for Language Generation Evaluation [52.76508734756661]
  Auto-PRE is an automatic evaluation framework inspired by the peer review process.<n>Unlike previous approaches that rely on human annotations, Auto-PRE automatically selects evaluators based on three core traits.<n> Experiments on three representative tasks, including summarization, non-factoid QA, and dialogue generation, demonstrate that Auto-PRE achieves state-of-the-art performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T06:06:06Z)
• A Comparative Study of Quality Evaluation Methods for Text Summarization [0.5512295869673147]
  This paper proposes a novel method based on large language models (LLMs) for evaluating text summarization. Our results show that LLMs evaluation aligns closely with human evaluation, while widely-used automatic metrics such as ROUGE-2, BERTScore, and SummaC do not and also lack consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-30T16:12:37Z)
• Disce aut Deficere: Evaluating LLMs Proficiency on the INVALSI Italian Benchmark [12.729687989535359]
  evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) in languages other than English is crucial for ensuring their linguistic versatility, cultural relevance, and applicability in diverse global contexts. We tackle this challenge by introducing a structured benchmark using the INVALSI tests, a set of well-established assessments designed to measure educational competencies across Italy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T13:20:08Z)
• LLMs as Narcissistic Evaluators: When Ego Inflates Evaluation Scores [23.568883428947494]
  We investigate whether prominent LM-based evaluation metrics demonstrate a favorable bias toward their respective underlying LMs in the context of summarization tasks. Our findings unveil a latent bias, particularly pronounced when such evaluation metrics are used in a reference-free manner without leveraging gold summaries. These results underscore that assessments provided by generative evaluation models can be influenced by factors beyond the inherent text quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T10:43:26Z)
• Calibrating LLM-Based Evaluator [92.17397504834825]
  We propose AutoCalibrate, a multi-stage, gradient-free approach to calibrate and align an LLM-based evaluator toward human preference. Instead of explicitly modeling human preferences, we first implicitly encompass them within a set of human labels. Our experiments on multiple text quality evaluation datasets illustrate a significant improvement in correlation with expert evaluation through calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-23T08:46:11Z)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)
• Evaluating the Performance of Large Language Models on GAOKAO Benchmark [53.663757126289795]
  This paper introduces GAOKAO-Bench, an intuitive benchmark that employs questions from the Chinese GAOKAO examination as test samples. With human evaluation, we obtain the converted total score of LLMs, including GPT-4, ChatGPT and ERNIE-Bot. We also use LLMs to grade the subjective questions, and find that model scores achieve a moderate level of consistency with human scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-21T14:39:28Z)
• Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach [77.61131357420201]
  We conduct a thorough and rigorous study on fairness disparities in peer review with the help of large language models (LMs) We collect, assemble, and maintain a comprehensive relational database for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) conference from 2017 to date. We postulate and study fairness disparities on multiple protective attributes of interest, including author gender, geography, author, and institutional prestige.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T16:19:42Z)
• Curious Case of Language Generation Evaluation Metrics: A Cautionary Tale [52.663117551150954]
  A few popular metrics remain as the de facto metrics to evaluate tasks such as image captioning and machine translation. This is partly due to ease of use, and partly because researchers expect to see them and know how to interpret them. In this paper, we urge the community for more careful consideration of how they automatically evaluate their models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-26T13:57:20Z)

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.