# Automated Multiple Mini Interview (MMI) Scoring

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.02360 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.02360/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 9 of its 21 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 2 Feb 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [What Makes Good In-Context Examples for GPT-3?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.06804/) (2021)
- [Smarter, Better, Faster, Longer: A Modern Bidirectional Encoder for Fast, Memory Efficient, and Long Context Finetuning and Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.13663/) (2024)
- [Active Example Selection for In-Context Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.04486/) (2022)
- [On the Use of BERT for Automated Essay Scoring: Joint Learning of Multi-Scale Essay Representation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.03835/) (2022)
- [Can Large Language Models Automatically Score Proficiency of Written Essays?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.06149/) (2024)
- [Unleashing Large Language Models' Proficiency in Zero-shot Essay Scoring](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04941/) (2024)
- [Rationale Behind Essay Scores: Enhancing S-LLM's Multi-Trait Essay Scoring with Rationale Generated by LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.14202/) (2024)
- [Are Large Language Models Good Essay Graders?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.13120/) (2024)
- [The Impact of Example Selection in Few-Shot Prompting on Automated Essay Scoring Using GPT Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.18924/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Assessing soft skills such as empathy, ethical judgment, and communication is essential in competitive selection processes, yet human scoring is often inconsistent and biased. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have improved Automated Essay Scoring (AES), we show that state-of-the-art rationale-based fine-tuning methods struggle with the abstract, context-dependent nature of Multiple Mini-Interviews (MMIs), missing the implicit signals embedded in candidate narratives. We introduce a multi-agent prompting framework that breaks down the evaluation process into transcript refinement and criterion-specific scoring. Using 3-shot in-context learning with a large instruct-tuned model, our approach outperforms specialised fine-tuned baselines (Avg QWK 0.62 vs 0.32) and achieves reliability comparable to human experts. We further demonstrate the generalisability of our framework on the ASAP benchmark, where it rivals domain-specific state-of-the-art models without additional training. These findings suggest that for complex, subjective reasoning tasks, structured prompt engineering may offer a scalable alternative to data-intensive fine-tuning, altering how LLMs can be applied to automated assessment.