Impacts of Histories and Models on LLM Grading: A Study in Advanced Software Engineering Courses

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.08400v1
• Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2026 01:31:23 GMT
• Title: Impacts of Histories and Models on LLM Grading: A Study in Advanced Software Engineering Courses
• Abstract summary: This paper proposes a human-aligned LLM-assisted grading workflow.<n>We evaluate two mainstream LLMs, Grok and GPT, in terms of grading consistency and alignment with human scores.
• Score: 4.784713411748711
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Graduate-level research reading report assessment creates a substantial labor burden for educators. While large language models (LLMs) hold great potential for automating academic grading, their reliability for this specialized task remains understudied, particularly regarding grading consistency, the lack of which represents a primary obstacle to educational fairness. This paper proposes a human-aligned LLM-assisted grading workflow and presents a case study based on 180 student submissions from a graduate advanced software engineering course. We evaluate two mainstream LLMs, Grok and GPT, in terms of grading consistency and alignment with human scores. We find LLMs exhibit distinct levels of intra-model consistency and significant inter-model grading inconsistencies, while simple ensemble approaches cannot improve alignment with human evaluation. Critically, continuous interaction history drives systematic drift in models' grading standards away from human expert scores. Our findings demonstrate LLMs' potential in reducing grading workload for educators in graduate education, while highlighting that indiscriminate LLM grading may introduce systemic unfairness, suggesting that specific operational practices are required to mitigate such disparities.

Related papers

• Beyond Grading Accuracy: Exploring Alignment of TAs and LLMs [1.529342790344802]
  We investigate the potential of open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) for grading Unified Language (UML) class diagrams.<n>Our results show per-criterion accuracy of up to 88.56% and a Pearson correlation coefficient of up to 0.78, representing a substantial improvement over previous work.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-17T10:40:35Z)
• Human-in-the-Loop LLM Grading for Handwritten Mathematics Assessments [4.291185382337384]
  We present a scalable, end-to-end workflow for LLM-assisted grading of short, pen-and-paper assessments.<n>We deploy the system in two undergraduate mathematics courses using six low-stakes in-class tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T15:32:09Z)
• LLM-REVal: Can We Trust LLM Reviewers Yet? [70.58742663985652]
  Large language models (LLMs) have inspired researchers to integrate them extensively into the academic workflow.<n>This study focuses on how the deep integration of LLMs into both peer-review and research processes may influence scholarly fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T10:30:20Z)
• Evaluating Bias in LLMs for Job-Resume Matching: Gender, Race, and Education [8.235367170516769]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) offer the potential to automate hiring by matching job descriptions with candidate resumes.<n>However, biases inherent in these models may lead to unfair hiring practices, reinforcing societal prejudices and undermining workplace diversity.<n>This study examines the performance and fairness of LLMs in job-resume matching tasks within the English language and U.S. context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-24T22:11:22Z)
• A Multi-LLM Debiasing Framework [85.17156744155915]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful tools with the potential to benefit society immensely, yet, they have demonstrated biases that perpetuate societal inequalities. Recent research has shown a growing interest in multi-LLM approaches, which have been demonstrated to be effective in improving the quality of reasoning. We propose a novel multi-LLM debiasing framework aimed at reducing bias in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-20T20:24:50Z)
• Human-AI Collaborative Essay Scoring: A Dual-Process Framework with LLMs [13.262711792955377]
  This study explores the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated essay scoring. We propose an open-source LLM-based AES system, inspired by the dual-process theory. We find that our system not only automates the grading process but also enhances the performance and efficiency of human graders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-12T07:50:10Z)
• Towards LLM-based Autograding for Short Textual Answers [4.853810201626855]
  This manuscript is an evaluation of a large language model for the purpose of autograding. Our findings suggest that while "out-of-the-box" LLMs provide a valuable tool, their readiness for independent automated grading remains a work in progress.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-09T22:25:56Z)
• Measuring and Improving Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Vision-Language Models [61.28463542324576]
  Vision-language models (VLMs) have recently demonstrated strong efficacy as visual assistants that can generate human-like outputs. We evaluate existing state-of-the-art VLMs and find that even the best-performing model is unable to demonstrate strong visual reasoning capabilities and consistency. We propose a two-stage training framework aimed at improving both the reasoning performance and consistency of VLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-08T17:49:44Z)
• 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)
• A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models [87.60417393701331]
  Large language models (LLMs) are gaining increasing popularity in both academia and industry. This paper focuses on three key dimensions: what to evaluate, where to evaluate, and how to evaluate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T16:28:35Z)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)

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.