mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Does the Prompt-based Large Language Model Recognize Students' Demographics and Introduce Bias in Essay Scoring?

arXiv 2504.21330 ↗First posted 30 Apr 2025cs.CLcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used in Automated Essay Scoring (AES) due to their ability to capture semantic meaning. Traditional fine-tuning approaches required technical expertise, limiting accessibility for educators with limited technical backgrounds. However, prompt-based tools like ChatGPT have made AES more accessible, enabling educators to obtain machine-generated scores using natural-language prompts (i.e., the prompt-based paradigm). Despite advancements, prior studies have shown bias in fine-tuned LLMs, particularly against disadvantaged groups. It remains unclear whether such biases persist or are amplified in the prompt-based paradigm with cutting-edge tools. Since such biases are believed to stem from the demographic information embedded in pre-trained models (i.e., the ability of LLMs' text embeddings to predict demographic attributes), this study explores the relationship between the model's predictive power of students' demographic attributes based on their written works and its predictive bias in the scoring task in the prompt-based paradigm. Using a publicly available dataset of over 25,000 students' argumentative essays, we designed prompts to elicit demographic inferences (i.e., gender, first-language background) from GPT-4o and assessed fairness in automated scoring. Then we conducted multivariate regression analysis to explore the impact of the model's ability to predict demographics on its scoring outcomes. Our findings revealed that (i) prompt-based LLMs can somewhat infer students' demographics, particularly their first-language backgrounds, from their essays; (ii) scoring biases are more pronounced when the LLM correctly predicts students' first-language background than when it does not; and (iii) scoring error for non-native English speakers increases when the LLM correctly identifies them as non-native.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Apr 2025.

Builds on

14 of 36 references.

References · 14

  1. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
  2. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,917
  3. 2022Red Teaming Language Models to Reduce Harms: Methods, Scaling Behaviors, and Lessons Learnedcited by 729
  4. 2024A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering in Large Language Models: Techniques and Applicationscited by 431
  5. 2022CoAuthor: Designing a Human-AI Collaborative Writing Dataset for Exploring Language Model Capabilitiescited by 249
  6. 2024Exploring LLM Prompting Strategies for Joint Essay Scoring and Feedback Generationcited by 63
  7. 2021Stereotype and Skew: Quantifying Gender Bias in Pre-trained and Fine-tuned Language Modelscited by 57
  8. 2024Human-AI Collaborative Essay Scoring: A Dual-Process Framework with LLMscited by 38
  9. 2019Language models and Automated Essay Scoringcited by 35
  10. 2024Promises and challenges of generative artificial intelligence for human learningcited by 17
  11. 2024A review on the use of large language models as virtual tutorscited by 13
  12. 2024Unveiling the Tapestry of Automated Essay Scoring: A Comprehensive Investigation of Accuracy, Fairness, and Generalizabilitycited by 8
2 more
  1. 2024A Systematic Review on Prompt Engineering in Large Language Models for K-12 STEM Educationcited by 8
  2. 2024The Impact of Example Selection in Few-Shot Prompting on Automated Essay Scoring Using GPT Modelscited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 5.

6 papers.