A LLM-Powered Automatic Grading Framework with Human-Level Guidelines Optimization
Open accessAbstract
Open-text responses provide researchers and educators with rich, nuanced insights that multiple-choice questions cannot capture. When reliably assessed, such responses have the potential to enhance teaching and learning. However, scaling and consistently capturing these nuances remain significant challenges, limiting the widespread use of open-text questions in educational research and assessments. In this paper, we introduce and evaluate GradeOpt, a unified multiagent automatic short-answer grading (ASAG) framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) as graders for short-answer responses. More importantly, GradeOpt incorporates two additional LLM-based agents—the reflector and the refiner—into the multi-agent system. This enables GradeOpt to automatically optimize the original grading guidelines by performing self-reflection on its errors. To assess GradeOpt's effectiveness, we conducted experiments on two representative ASAG datasets, which include items designed to capture key aspects of teachers' pedagogical knowledge and students' learning progress. Our results demonstrate that GradeOpt consistently outperforms representative baselines in both grading accuracy and alignment with human evaluators across different knowledge domains. Finally, comprehensive ablation studies validate the contributions of GradeOpt's individual components, confirming their impact on overall performance.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Universities increasingly rely on AI systems to assess, classify, and enforce academic norms.
“Because universities increasingly rely on AI systems to assess, classify, and enforce academic norms [16, 27, 37, 63]”
From The Due Process Deficit: Auditing AI Governance in U.S. Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as [16]
The Related Work section (p. 32) says LLMs are increasingly used for short-answer grading and similar assessment tasks, and describes grading as a classification problem. That supports the assessment and classification aspects, but the paper does not establish that universities increasingly rely on these systems or use them to enforce academic norms. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Due Process Deficit: Auditing AI Governance in U.S. Higher Education
Teleki, M., Choi, A. S. G., Duray, A., Liu, H., Zhang, J., Dong, X., Da Silva, D., Koenecke, A., & Caverlee, J. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3805689.3812328
Self-citationUma, S., Ghosh, S., & Mustaqim, D. D. A. (2026) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3742413.3789130
Barghorn, J., Sotnikova, A., Friedli, S., & Bosselut, A. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791236 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Xavier, C., Rodrigues, L., Valdo, A. K. S. M., Carvalho, A., Matos, G., Kalinke, L. H. G., Vilela, R. S., Resende, E. C., Arantes, T. M., Silva, M. A. P., et al. (2026) · International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK) · doi:10.1145/3785022.3785033
Toward Reliable LLM-Integrated Web Architectures for Teacher-Aligned Automatic Student Grading
Gwozdz, J., & Both, A. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-29372-5_8
- Authors
- Chu, Y., Li, H., Yang, K., Shomer, H., Copur-Gencturk, Y., Kaldaras, L., Haudek, K., Krajcik, J., Shin, N., Liu, H., & Tang, J.
- Venue
- International Educational Data Mining Society
- Publisher
- International Educational Data Mining Society
- Published
- 2025-07-12
- OpenAlex
- W6912160608
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5
- FWCI
- 5.72
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Keywords
- automatic short answer grading, large language models, multi-agent systems, self-reflection, self-refinement, teacher pedagogical knowledge, student learning progress
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review