From Scoring to Explanations: Evaluating SHAP and LLM Rationales for Rubric-based Teaching Quality Assessment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.05180v1
• Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2026 14:27:51 GMT
• Title: From Scoring to Explanations: Evaluating SHAP and LLM Rationales for Rubric-based Teaching Quality Assessment
• Abstract summary: We propose a general framework for sentence-level interpretability of rubric-based scoring.<n>We show that SHAP provides more faithful and transferable explanations for rubric-based scoring.
• Score: 12.134587575174633
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Automated scoring models are increasingly used to assign rubric-based quality ratings to complex language performances, including classroom transcripts, yet they typically provide little insight into why a particular score is produced. We propose a general framework for sentence-level interpretability of rubric-based scoring that combines model-agnostic Shapley-value attributions with rationales generated by large language models (LLMs). Instantiated on the Quality of Feedback dimension of the CLASS framework using the NCTE corpus, the framework enables systematic comparison of fine-tuned pretrained language models (PLMs) and prompted LLMs on both scoring performance and explanation faithfulness. Across 6k annotated transcript segments, fine-tuned PLMs outperform LLMs in prediction accuracy but exhibit label compression toward mid-scale scores. Deletion-based tests show that SHAP identifies sentences that reliably drive model predictions, producing typically larger and more coherent prediction shifts than LLM-generated rationales. Cross-model analyses further reveal that SHAP attributions transfer robustly across architectures, whereas LLM rationales exert limited and inconsistent influence. Overall, the findings demonstrate that SHAP provides more faithful and transferable explanations for rubric-based scoring, and that the proposed framework offers a principled basis for evaluating both scoring models and their explanations in high-stakes educational settings and other rubric-based language assessment tasks.

Related papers

• Beyond Holistic Scores: Automatic Trait-Based Quality Scoring of Argumentative Essays [15.895792302323883]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T14:30:52Z)
• 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)
• RAG-Zeval: Towards Robust and Interpretable Evaluation on RAG Responses through End-to-End Rule-Guided Reasoning [64.46921169261852]
  RAG-Zeval is a novel end-to-end framework that formulates faithfulness and correctness evaluation as a rule-guided reasoning task.<n>Our approach trains evaluators with reinforcement learning, facilitating compact models to generate comprehensive and sound assessments.<n>Experiments demonstrate RAG-Zeval's superior performance, achieving the strongest correlation with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T14:55:33Z)
• Beyond the Singular: The Essential Role of Multiple Generations in Effective Benchmark Evaluation and Analysis [10.133537818749291]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant utilities in real-world applications.<n> Benchmark evaluations are crucial for assessing the capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T03:43:33Z)
• When LLMs Struggle: Reference-less Translation Evaluation for Low-resource Languages [9.138590152838754]
  Segment-level quality estimation (QE) is a challenging cross-lingual language understanding task.<n>We comprehensively evaluate large language models (LLMs) in zero/few-shot scenarios.<n>Our results indicate that prompt-based approaches are outperformed by the encoder-based fine-tuned QE models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-08T12:54:05Z)
• 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)
• Rationale Behind Essay Scores: Enhancing S-LLM's Multi-Trait Essay Scoring with Rationale Generated by LLMs [2.324913904215885]
  This paper introduces Rationale-based Multiple Trait Scoring (RMTS), a novel approach for multi-trait essay scoring.<n>RMTS integrates prompt-engineering-based large language models (LLMs) with a fine-tuning-based essay scoring model using a smaller large language model (S-LLM)<n>Experiments on benchmark datasets, including ASAP, ASAP++, and Feedback Prize, show that RMTS significantly outperforms state-of-the-art models and vanilla S-LLMs in trait-specific scoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T06:35:17Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)
• An Examination of the Compositionality of Large Generative Vision-Language Models [7.639748270719836]
  Generative Vision-Language Models (GVLMs) have been constructed via multimodal instruction tuning. In this paper, we examine both the evaluation metrics (VisualGPTScore, etc.) and current benchmarks for evaluating the compositionality of GVLMs. We identify the syntactical bias in current benchmarks, which is exploited by the linguistic capability of GVLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-21T06:50:29Z)

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.