# Can Large Language Models Differentiate Harmful from Argumentative Essays? Steps Toward Ethical Essay Scoring

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.05545 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.05545/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 30 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 9 Jan 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05862/) (2022)
- [GPTFUZZER: Red Teaming Large Language Models with Auto-Generated Jailbreak Prompts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.10253/) (2023)
- [Jailbreaking ChatGPT via Prompt Engineering: An Empirical Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13860/) (2023)
- [Toxicity in ChatGPT: Analyzing Persona-assigned Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.05335/) (2023)
- [A New Generation of Perspective API: Efficient Multilingual Character-level Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.11176/) (2022)
- [Is ChatGPT better than Human Annotators? Potential and Limitations of ChatGPT in Explaining Implicit Hate Speech](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.07736/) (2023)
- [Did You Read the Instructions? Rethinking the Effectiveness of Task Definitions in Instruction Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.01150/) (2023)
- [Can Large Language Models Automatically Score Proficiency of Written Essays?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.06149/) (2024)
- [Is GPT-4 Alone Sufficient for Automated Essay Scoring?: A Comparative Judgment Approach Based on Rater Cognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.05733/) (2024)
- [Label-aware Hard Negative Sampling Strategies with Momentum Contrastive Learning for Implicit Hate Speech Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07886/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

This study addresses critical gaps in Automated Essay Scoring (AES) systems and Large Language Models (LLMs) with regard to their ability to effectively identify and score harmful essays. Despite advancements in AES technology, current models often overlook ethically and morally problematic elements within essays, erroneously assigning high scores to essays that may propagate harmful opinions. In this study, we introduce the Harmful Essay Detection (HED) benchmark, which includes essays integrating sensitive topics such as racism and gender bias, to test the efficacy of various LLMs in recognizing and scoring harmful content. Our findings reveal that: (1) LLMs require further enhancement to accurately distinguish between harmful and argumentative essays, and (2) both current AES models and LLMs fail to consider the ethical dimensions of content during scoring. The study underscores the need for developing more robust AES systems that are sensitive to the ethical implications of the content they are scoring.