Beyond Holistic Scores: Automatic Trait-Based Quality Scoring of Argumentative Essays

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.04604v1
• Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2026 14:30:52 GMT
• Title: Beyond Holistic Scores: Automatic Trait-Based Quality Scoring of Argumentative Essays
• Authors: Lucile Favero, Juan Antonio Pérez-Ortiz, Tanja Käser, Nuria Oliver,
• Abstract summary: In educational contexts, teachers and learners require interpretable, trait-level feedback.<n>We study trait-based Automatic Argumentative Essay Scoring using two complementary modeling paradigms.<n>We show that explicitly modeling score ordinality substantially improves agreement with human raters.
• Score: 15.895792302323883
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Automated Essay Scoring systems have traditionally focused on holistic scores, limiting their pedagogical usefulness, especially in the case of complex essay genres such as argumentative writing. In educational contexts, teachers and learners require interpretable, trait-level feedback that aligns with instructional goals and established rubrics. In this paper, we study trait-based Automatic Argumentative Essay Scoring using two complementary modeling paradigms designed for realistic educational deployment: (1) structured in-context learning with small open-source LLMs, and (2) a supervised, encoder-based BigBird model with a CORAL-style ordinal regression formulation, optimized for long-sequence understanding. We conduct a systematic evaluation on the ASAP++ dataset, which includes essay scores across five quality traits, offering strong coverage of core argumentation dimensions. LLMs are prompted with designed, rubric-aligned in-context examples, along with feedback and confidence requests, while we explicitly model ordinality in scores with the BigBird model via the rank-consistent CORAL framework. Our results show that explicitly modeling score ordinality substantially improves agreement with human raters across all traits, outperforming LLMs and nominal classification and regression-based baselines. This finding reinforces the importance of aligning model objectives with rubric semantics for educational assessment. At the same time, small open-source LLMs achieve a competitive performance without task-specific fine-tuning, particularly for reasoning-oriented traits, while enabling transparent, privacy-preserving, and locally deployable assessment scenarios. Our findings provide methodological, modeling, and practical insights for the design of AI-based educational systems that aim to deliver interpretable, rubric-aligned feedback for argumentative writing.

Related papers

• Optimizing In-Context Demonstrations for LLM-based Automated Grading [31.353360036776976]
  GUIDE (Grading Using Iteratively Designed Exemplars) is a framework that reframes exemplar selection and refinement as a boundary-focused optimization problem.<n>We show that GUIDE significantly outperforms standard retrieval baselines in experiments in physics, chemistry, and pedagogical content knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-28T04:52:38Z)
• Automated Multiple Mini Interview (MMI) Scoring [5.277507079014855]
  We show that state-of-the-art rationale-based fine-tuning methods struggle with the abstract, context-dependent nature of Mini-Interviews.<n>We introduce a multi-agent prompting framework that breaks down the evaluation process into transcript refinement and criterion-specific scoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T17:20:25Z)
• Measuring Teaching with LLMs [4.061135251278187]
  This paper uses custom Large Language Models built on sentence-level embeddings.<n>We show that these specialized models can achieve human-level and even super-human performance with expert human ratings above 0.65.<n>We also find that aggregate model scores align with teacher value-added measures, indicating they are capturing features relevant to student learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-27T03:42:04Z)
• Toward Purpose-oriented Topic Model Evaluation enabled by Large Language Models [0.8193467416247519]
  We introduce a purpose-oriented evaluation framework that employs nine Large Language Models (LLMs)-based metrics spanning four key dimensions of topic quality.<n>The framework is validated through adversarial and sampling-based protocols, and is applied across datasets spanning news articles, scholarly publications, and social media posts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-08T18:46:08Z)
• Large Language Models Meet Symbolic Provers for Logical Reasoning Evaluation [24.081573908824353]
  First-order logic (FOL) reasoning is pivotal for intelligent systems.<n>Existing benchmarks often rely on extensive human annotation or handcrafted templates.<n>We propose a novel framework called ProverGen that synergizes the generative strengths of Large Language Models with the rigor and precision of symbolic provers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T15:31:54Z)
• StructTest: Benchmarking LLMs' Reasoning through Compositional Structured Outputs [78.84060166851805]
  StructTest is a novel benchmark that evaluates large language models (LLMs) on their ability to follow compositional instructions and generate structured outputs.<n> Assessments are conducted deterministically using a rule-based evaluator, which can be easily extended to new tasks and datasets.<n>We demonstrate that StructTest remains challenging even for top-performing models like Deepseek-V3/R1 and GPT-4o.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T22:08:40Z)
• 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 Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• Exploiting Contextual Target Attributes for Target Sentiment Classification [53.30511968323911]
  Existing PTLM-based models for TSC can be categorized into two groups: 1) fine-tuning-based models that adopt PTLM as the context encoder; 2) prompting-based models that transfer the classification task to the text/word generation task. We present a new perspective of leveraging PTLM for TSC: simultaneously leveraging the merits of both language modeling and explicit target-context interactions via contextual target attributes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-21T11:45:28Z)
• Towards Verifiable Generation: A Benchmark for Knowledge-aware Language Model Attribution [48.86322922826514]
  This paper defines a new task of Knowledge-aware Language Model Attribution (KaLMA) First, we extend attribution source from unstructured texts to Knowledge Graph (KG), whose rich structures benefit both the attribution performance and working scenarios. Second, we propose a new Conscious Incompetence" setting considering the incomplete knowledge repository. Third, we propose a comprehensive automatic evaluation metric encompassing text quality, citation quality, and text citation alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T11:45:59Z)
• Discover, Explanation, Improvement: An Automatic Slice Detection Framework for Natural Language Processing [72.14557106085284]
  slice detection models (SDM) automatically identify underperforming groups of datapoints. This paper proposes a benchmark named "Discover, Explain, improve (DEIM)" for classification NLP tasks. Our evaluation shows that Edisa can accurately select error-prone datapoints with informative semantic features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-08T19:00:00Z)
• 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)

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.