arXiv AI
Aug 19

Grading Needs a Rubric, Not Intelligence

Small language models can grade open‑ended exam answers as reliably as much larger models when they use an explicit rubric. In experiments with six cost‑efficient model configurations, the rubric decouples grading from judge intelligence, with answer identity explaining 95.6% of score variance and judge identity only 0.2%. Removing rubric criteria or the official answer collapses reliability and inflates scores, showing the rubric’s essential role.

By Jhen-Ke Lin
arXiv AI
Jun 6

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

arXiv:2606. 05180v1 Announce Type: cross 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.

By Ivo Bueno, Babette B\"uhler, Philipp Stark, Tim F\"utterer, Ulrich Trautwein, Dorottya Demszky, Heather Hill, Enkelejda Kasneci
arXiv AI
Sep 3

Rating the Raters: Rasch Measurement Theory for LLM Evaluation

The paper discusses how large language models (LLMs) are used in various evaluation roles—examining benchmarks, judging other models, and rating human content—and frames each as a measurement problem. It proposes using Rasch measurement theory (RMT) to decompose ordinal ratings into distinct facets on a common scale, offering diagnostics for miscalibration and rater bias. A case study applying RMT to the Measuring Hate Speech corpus reveals systematic differences between LLMs and human raters in severity, calibration, robustness, sensitivity, and scale use, suggesting RMT should be part of the evaluation toolkit for LLMs in all roles.

By Pratik S. Sachdeva, Nathan Boudol