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.

Automatic Essay Scoring (AES) is widely used to evaluate candidates for educational purposes. However, due to the lack of representative data, most existing AES systems are not robust, and their scoring predictions are biased towards the most represented data samples. In this study, we propose a model-agnostic phrase-level method to generate an adversarial essay set to address the biases and robustness of AES models. Specifically, we construct an attack test set comprising samples from the original test set and adversarially generated samples using our proposed method. To evaluate the effectiveness of the attack strategy and data augmentation, we conducted a comprehensive analysis utilizing various neural network scoring models. Experimental results show that the proposed approach significantly improves AES model performance in the presence of adversarial examples and scenarios without such attacks.

This study examines the effect of grammatical features in automatic essay scoring (AES). We use two kinds of grammatical features as input to an AES model: (1) grammatical items that writers used correctly in essays, and (2) the number of grammatical errors. Experimental results show that grammatical features improve the performance of AES models that predict the holistic scores of essays. Multi-task learning with the holistic and grammar scores, alongside using grammatical features, resulted in a larger improvement in model performance. We also show that a model using grammar abilities estimated using Item Response Theory (IRT) as the labels for the auxiliary task achieved comparable performance to when we used grammar scores assigned by human raters. In addition, we weight the grammatical features using IRT to consider the difficulty of grammatical items and writers' grammar abilities. We found that weighting grammatical features with the difficulty led to further improvement in performance.

Automatic Essay Scoring (AES) is a well-established educational pursuit that employs machine learning to evaluate student-authored essays. While much effort has been made in this area, current research primarily focuses on either (i) boosting the predictive accuracy of an AES model for a specific prompt (i.e., developing prompt-specific models), which often heavily relies on the use of the labeled data from the same target prompt; or (ii) assessing the applicability of AES models developed on non-target prompts to the intended target prompt (i.e., developing the AES models in a cross-prompt setting). Given the inherent bias in machine learning and its potential impact on marginalized groups, it is imperative to investigate whether such bias exists in current AES methods and, if identified, how it intervenes with an AES model's accuracy and generalizability. Thus, our study aimed to uncover the intricate relationship between an AES model's accuracy, fairness, and generalizability, contributing practical insights for developing effective AES models in real-world education. To this end, we meticulously selected nine prominent AES methods and evaluated their performance using seven metrics on an open-sourced dataset, which contains over 25,000 essays and various demographic information about students such as gender, English language learner status, and economic status. Through extensive evaluations, we demonstrated that: (1) prompt-specific models tend to outperform their cross-prompt counterparts in terms of predictive accuracy; (2) prompt-specific models frequently exhibit a greater bias towards students of different economic statuses compared to cross-prompt models; (3) in the pursuit of generalizability, traditional machine learning models coupled with carefully engineered features hold greater potential for achieving both high accuracy and fairness than complex neural network models.

Automated essay scoring (AES) provides a useful tool for students and instructors in writing classes by generating essay scores in real-time. However, previous AES models do not provide more specific rubric-based scores nor feedback on how to improve the essays, which can be even more important than the overall scores for learning. We present FABRIC, a pipeline to help students and instructors in English writing classes by automatically generating 1) the overall scores, 2) specific rubric-based scores, and 3) detailed feedback on how to improve the essays. Under the guidance of English education experts, we chose the rubrics for the specific scores as content, organization, and language. The first component of the FABRIC pipeline is DREsS, a real-world Dataset for Rubric-based Essay Scoring (DREsS). The second component is CASE, a Corruption-based Augmentation Strategy for Essays, with which we can improve the accuracy of the baseline model by 45.44%. The third component is EssayCoT, the Essay Chain-of-Thought prompting strategy which uses scores predicted from the AES model to generate better feedback. We evaluate the effectiveness of the new dataset DREsS and the augmentation strategy CASE quantitatively and show significant improvements over the models trained with existing datasets. We evaluate the feedback generated by EssayCoT with English education experts to show significant improvements in the helpfulness of the feedback across all rubrics. Lastly, we evaluate the FABRIC pipeline with students in a college English writing class who rated the generated scores and feedback with an average of 6 on the Likert scale from 1 to 7.

Deep-learning based Automatic Essay Scoring (AES) systems are being actively used by states and language testing agencies alike to evaluate millions of candidates for life-changing decisions ranging from college applications to visa approvals. However, little research has been put to understand and interpret the black-box nature of deep-learning based scoring algorithms. Previous studies indicate that scoring models can be easily fooled. In this paper, we explore the reason behind their surprising adversarial brittleness. We utilize recent advances in interpretability to find the extent to which features such as coherence, content, vocabulary, and relevance are important for automated scoring mechanisms. We use this to investigate the oversensitivity i.e., large change in output score with a little change in input essay content) and overstability i.e., little change in output scores with large changes in input essay content) of AES. Our results indicate that autoscoring models, despite getting trained as "end-to-end" models with rich contextual embeddings such as BERT, behave like bag-of-words models. A few words determine the essay score without the requirement of any context making the model largely overstable. This is in stark contrast to recent probing studies on pre-trained representation learning models, which show that rich linguistic features such as parts-of-speech and morphology are encoded by them. Further, we also find that the models have learnt dataset biases, making them oversensitive. To deal with these issues, we propose detection-based protection models that can detect oversensitivity and overstability causing samples with high accuracies. We find that our proposed models are able to detect unusual attribution patterns and flag adversarial samples successfully.

Significant progress has been made in deep-learning based Automatic Essay Scoring (AES) systems in the past two decades. However, little research has been put to understand and interpret the black-box nature of these deep-learning based scoring models. Recent work shows that automated scoring systems are prone to even common-sense adversarial samples. Their lack of natural language understanding capability raises questions on the models being actively used by millions of candidates for life-changing decisions. With scoring being a highly multi-modal task, it becomes imperative for scoring models to be validated and tested on all these modalities. We utilize recent advances in interpretability to find the extent to which features such as coherence, content and relevance are important for automated scoring mechanisms and why they are susceptible to adversarial samples. We find that the systems tested consider essays not as a piece of prose having the characteristics of natural flow of speech and grammatical structure, but as `word-soups' where a few words are much more important than the other words. Removing the context surrounding those few important words causes the prose to lose the flow of speech and grammar, however has little impact on the predicted score. We also find that since the models are not semantically grounded with world-knowledge and common sense, adding false facts such as ``the world is flat'' actually increases the score instead of decreasing it.

We demonstrate that current state-of-the-art approaches to Automated Essay Scoring (AES) are not well-suited to capturing adversarially crafted input of grammatical but incoherent sequences of sentences. We develop a neural model of local coherence that can effectively learn connectedness features between sentences, and propose a framework for integrating and jointly training the local coherence model with a state-of-the-art AES model. We evaluate our approach against a number of baselines and experimentally demonstrate its effectiveness on both the AES task and the task of flagging adversarial input, further contributing to the development of an approach that strengthens the validity of neural essay scoring models.

End-to-end argument mining has enabled the development of new automated essay scoring (AES) systems that use argumentative features (e.g., number of claims, number of support relations) in addition to traditional legacy features (e.g., grammar, discourse structure) when scoring persuasive essays. While prior research has proposed different argumentative features as well as empirically demonstrated their utility for AES, these studies have all had important limitations. In this paper we identify a set of desiderata for evaluating the use of argument mining for AES, introduce an end-to-end argument mining system and associated argumentative feature sets, and present the results of several studies that both satisfy the desiderata and demonstrate the value-added of argument mining for scoring persuasive essays.