The paper introduces Trait-Aware Policy Optimization (TAPO), a post‑training framework for autoregressive models that score essays across multiple traits. TAPO decomposes rewards by sample and trait, integrating global consistency, trait accuracy, format validity, and inter‑trait dependencies, while enriching prompts with trait descriptions. Experiments on various backbone models show TAPO consistently outperforms supervised fine‑tuning and scalar‑reward baselines, proving its effectiveness and transferability for multi‑trait essay scoring.
By Zhengyang Wang, Sanwoo Lee, Jiaxin Wang, Chenxi Miao, Weikang Li, Yunfang Wu
arXiv:2607. 19219v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have been widely applied to automated essay scoring (AES) and automated feedback generation (AFG).
By Xuefeng Jin, Jiashuo Zhang, Teng Cao, Bin Yang
Large language models (LLMs) have been widely applied to automated essay scoring (AES) and automated feedback generation (AFG). However, existing studies rely primarily on prompt engineering or supervised fine-tuning, while systematic research on reinforcement learning (RL) post-training and automated evaluation of feedback quality remains limited.
arXiv:2606. 10327v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated Essay Scoring (AES) systems must judge interdependent discourse elements (e.
By Ali Keramati, Mark Warschauer
arXiv:2602. 01747v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Automated Essay Scoring (AES) plays a crucial role in education by providing scalable and efficient assessment tools.
By Hongseok Choi, Serynn Kim, Wencke Liermann, Jin Seong, Jin-Xia Huang
arXiv:2607. 15829v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated essay scoring (AES) enables scalable assessment and timely feedback but remains challenged by transformer input-length limitations, which can cause information loss when processing long essays.
By Haowei Hua
arXiv:2504.02323v5 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have created new opportunities to assist teachers and support student learning. While researchers have explored variou...
By Clayton Cohn, Ashwin T S, Naveeduddin Mohammed, Gautam Biswas
arXiv:2607. 14524v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: This study presents WrAFT, a Writing Assessment and Feedback Tool, that delivers both accurate and reliable scores and effective comprehensive feedback to argumentative essays.
By Adnan Labib, Yixuan Huang, Jiahui Wu, John Maurice Gayed, Zheng Yuan, Qiao Wang
The paper introduces a cost‑aware framework that treats each prompt type as an arm in a multi‑armed bandit controller, enabling adaptive selection of optimal prompting strategies during inference for automated essay scoring. Experiments on IELTS Writing Task 2 essays demonstrate that this bandit-driven approach achieves comparable scoring accuracy to exhaustive grid search while reducing LLM calls by 78.4%. The study also presents the first cost‑reliability learning curves for essay scoring, offering actionable insights for educational technology platforms balancing operational costs against assessment validity.
By Olga Manakina, Igor Bogdanov
The paper introduces a human‑in‑the‑loop framework for AI‑assisted scoring of short written responses in a large‑scale national assessment. Using data from two recent test editions with about 5,000 student responses each, the authors validate that AI‑generated scores align moderately to highly with human raters across multiple rubric dimensions. The framework includes a correction workflow that flags cases needing human review, thereby reducing manual workload while maintaining assessment quality.
By Mar\'ia Eugenia Curi, Germ\'an Capdehourat, Isabel Amigo, Magdalena Romano, Rosana Serra, Adri\'an Silveira, Andr\'es Peri
arXiv:2606. 20152v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have substantially transformed Automated Essay Scoring (AES), yet the internal mechanisms underlying LLM-based scoring remain poorly understood.
By Jiaxu Zuo, Mu You, Kaixin Lan, Tao Fang, Yujia Huo, Henghua Shen, Lidia S. Chao, Derek F. Wong
The paper introduces a human‑in‑the‑loop framework for AI‑assisted scoring of short written responses in a large‑scale national assessment. Using data from two recent test editions with about 5,000 responses each, the study validates that AI-generated scores align moderately to highly with human raters across multiple rubric dimensions. The framework also identifies when human review is most needed, allowing more efficient allocation of expert effort while maintaining assessment quality.