ICLE++: Modeling Fine-Grained Traits for Holistic Essay Scoring

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.27671v1
• Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2026 04:35:02 GMT
• Title: ICLE++: Modeling Fine-Grained Traits for Holistic Essay Scoring
• Abstract summary: We introduce ICLE++, a corpus of persuasive student essays annotated with both holistic scores and trait-specific scores.<n>Not only can ICLE++ be used to test the generalizability of AES models trained on ASAP, but it can also facilitate the evaluation of models developed for newer AES problems.
• Score: 16.481654889824448
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The majority of the recently-developed models for automated essay scoring (AES) are evaluated solely on the ASAP corpus. However, ASAP is not without its limitations. For instance, it is not clear whether models trained on ASAP can generalize well when evaluated on other corpora. In light of these limitations, we introduce ICLE++, a corpus of persuasive student essays annotated with both holistic scores and trait-specific scores. Not only can ICLE++ be used to test the generalizability of AES models trained on ASAP, but it can also facilitate the evaluation of models developed for newer AES problems such as multi-trait scoring and cross-prompt scoring. We believe that ICLE++, which represents a culmination of our long-term effort in annotating the essays in the ICLE corpus, contributes to the set of much-needed annotated corpora for AES research.

Related papers

• 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)
• Are Large Language Models Good Classifiers? A Study on Edit Intent Classification in Scientific Document Revisions [62.12545440385489]
  Large language models (LLMs) have brought substantial advancements in text generation, but their potential for enhancing classification tasks remains underexplored. We propose a framework for thoroughly investigating fine-tuning LLMs for classification, including both generation- and encoding-based approaches. We instantiate this framework in edit intent classification (EIC), a challenging and underexplored classification task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T20:48:28Z)
• Is GPT-4 Alone Sufficient for Automated Essay Scoring?: A Comparative Judgment Approach Based on Rater Cognition [0.09208007322096534]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in Automated Essay Scoring (AES) LLMs have shown promise in AES, but their zero-shot and few-shot performance often falls short compared to state-of-the-art models and human raters. This study proposes a novel approach combining LLMs and Comparative Judgment (CJ) for AES, using zero-shot prompting to choose between two essays.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T08:37:00Z)
• Can GPT-4 do L2 analytic assessment? [34.445391091278786]
  Automated essay scoring (AES) to evaluate second language (L2) proficiency has been a firmly established technology used in educational contexts for decades. In this paper, we perform a series of experiments using GPT-4 in a zero-shot fashion on a publicly available dataset annotated with holistic scores. We observe significant correlations between the automatically predicted analytic scores and multiple features associated with the individual proficiency components.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-29T10:00:00Z)
• Generative Judge for Evaluating Alignment [84.09815387884753]
  We propose a generative judge with 13B parameters, Auto-J, designed to address these challenges. Our model is trained on user queries and LLM-generated responses under massive real-world scenarios. Experimentally, Auto-J outperforms a series of strong competitors, including both open-source and closed-source models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T07:27:15Z)
• Short Answer Grading Using One-shot Prompting and Text Similarity Scoring Model [2.14986347364539]
  We developed an automated short answer grading model that provided both analytic scores and holistic scores. The accuracy and quadratic weighted kappa of our model were 0.67 and 0.71 on a subset of the publicly available ASAG dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T22:05:29Z)
• Active Learning for Abstractive Text Summarization [50.79416783266641]
  We propose the first effective query strategy for Active Learning in abstractive text summarization. We show that using our strategy in AL annotation helps to improve the model performance in terms of ROUGE and consistency scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-09T10:33:14Z)
• AES Systems Are Both Overstable And Oversensitive: Explaining Why And Proposing Defenses [66.49753193098356]
  We investigate the reason behind the surprising adversarial brittleness of scoring models. Our results indicate that autoscoring models, despite getting trained as "end-to-end" models, behave like bag-of-words models. We propose detection-based protection models that can detect oversensitivity and overstability causing samples with high accuracies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-24T03:49:38Z)
• RADDLE: An Evaluation Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Robust Task-oriented Dialog Systems [75.87418236410296]
  We introduce the RADDLE benchmark, a collection of corpora and tools for evaluating the performance of models across a diverse set of domains. RADDLE is designed to favor and encourage models with a strong generalization ability. We evaluate recent state-of-the-art systems based on pre-training and fine-tuning, and find that grounded pre-training on heterogeneous dialog corpora performs better than training a separate model per domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-29T08:58:49Z)
• Evaluation Toolkit For Robustness Testing Of Automatic Essay Scoring Systems [64.4896118325552]
  We evaluate the current state-of-the-art AES models using a model adversarial evaluation scheme and associated metrics. We find that AES models are highly overstable. Even heavy modifications(as much as 25%) with content unrelated to the topic of the questions do not decrease the score produced by the models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-14T03:49:43Z)

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.