Cited by 5Educational Technology and AssessmentArtificial Intelligence in EducationIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

A LLM-Powered Automatic Grading Framework with Human-Level Guidelines Optimization

Open access
Yucheng Chu, Hang Li, Kaiqi Yang, Harry Shomer, Yasemin Copur-Gencturk, Leonora Kaldaras, Kevin Haudek, Joseph Krajcik +3 more·2025·International Educational Data Mining Society

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.5281/zenodo.15870200

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

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
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