# Unveiling Scoring Processes: Dissecting the Differences between LLMs and Human Graders in Automatic Scoring

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.18328 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.18328/

## Key facts

- Cited by 13 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 23 of its 40 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 4 Jul 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 23 of 23)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.10084/) (2019)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.05530/) (2024)
- [Mixtral of Experts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.04088/) (2024)
- [Explainability for Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.01029/) (2023)
- [Shortcut Learning of Large Language Models in Natural Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.11857/) (2022)
- [Practical and Ethical Challenges of Large Language Models in Education: A Systematic Scoping Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.13379/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Can be Lazy Learners: Analyze Shortcuts in In-Context Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17256/) (2023)
- [Applying Large Language Models and Chain-of-Thought for Automatic Scoring](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.03748/) (2023)
- [From Language Modeling to Instruction Following: Understanding the Behavior Shift in LLMs after Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.00492/) (2023)
- [Fine-tuning ChatGPT for Automatic Scoring](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.10072/) (2023)
- [Usable XAI: 10 Strategies Towards Exploiting Explainability in the LLM Era](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.08946/) (2024)
- [A Chain-of-Thought Prompting Approach with LLMs for Evaluating Students' Formative Assessment Responses in Science](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.14565/) (2024)
- [A Comparative Study of Open-Source Large Language Models, GPT-4 and Claude 2: Multiple-Choice Test Taking in Nephrology](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.04709/) (2023)
- [Matching Exemplar as Next Sentence Prediction (MeNSP): Zero-shot Prompt Learning for Automatic Scoring in Science Education](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.08771/) (2023)
- [Assessing Student Errors in Experimentation Using Artificial Intelligence and Large Language Models: A Comparative Study with Human Raters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.06088/) (2023)
- [Semantic Similarity Metrics for Evaluating Source Code Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.01632/) (2022)
- [Empirical Study of Large Language Models as Automated Essay Scoring Tools in English Composition__Taking TOEFL Independent Writing Task for Example](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.03401/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [AutoSCORE: Enhancing Automated Scoring with Multi-Agent Large Language Models via Structured Component Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.21910/) (2025)
- [Shortcut Learning in In-Context Learning: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.02018/) (2024)
- [EssayJudge: A Multi-Granular Benchmark for Assessing Automated Essay Scoring Capabilities of Multimodal Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.11916/) (2025)
- [CAFES: A Collaborative Multi-Agent Framework for Multi-Granular Multimodal Essay Scoring](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.13965/) (2025)
- [PinLanding: Content-First Keyword Landing Page Generation via Multi-Modal AI for Web-Scale Discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.00619/) (2025)
- [Exploring LLM-Generated Feedback for Economics Essays: How Teaching Assistants Evaluate and Envision Its Use](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.15596/) (2025)
- [RubiSCoT: A Framework for AI-Supported Academic Assessment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.17309/) (2025)
- [Enhancing LLM-Based Data Annotation with Error Decomposition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.11920/) (2026)
- [Generative-Evaluative Agreement: A Necessary Validity Criterion for LLM-Enabled Adaptive Assessment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.19529/) (2026)
- [Stay Hungry, Stay Foolish: On the Extended Reading Articles Generation with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.15013/) (2025)
- [Using Large Language Models to Assess Teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.19266/) (2025)
- [Leveraging Interview-Informed LLMs to Model Survey Responses: Comparative Insights from AI-Generated and Human Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.21997/) (2025)
- [Applying Large Language Models to Characterize Public Narratives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.13505/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong potential in performing automatic scoring for constructed response assessments. While constructed responses graded by humans are usually based on given grading rubrics, the methods by which LLMs assign scores remain largely unclear. It is also uncertain how closely AI's scoring process mirrors that of humans or if it adheres to the same grading criteria. To address this gap, this paper uncovers the grading rubrics that LLMs used to score students' written responses to science tasks and their alignment with human scores. We also examine whether enhancing the alignments can improve scoring accuracy. Specifically, we prompt LLMs to generate analytic rubrics that they use to assign scores and study the alignment gap with human grading rubrics. Based on a series of experiments with various configurations of LLM settings, we reveal a notable alignment gap between human and LLM graders. While LLMs can adapt quickly to scoring tasks, they often resort to shortcuts, bypassing deeper logical reasoning expected in human grading. We found that incorporating high-quality analytical rubrics designed to reflect human grading logic can mitigate this gap and enhance LLMs' scoring accuracy. These results underscore the need for a nuanced approach when applying LLMs in science education and highlight the importance of aligning LLM outputs with human expectations to ensure efficient and accurate automatic scoring.