Across three enterprise agent benchmarks, agent main effects are under 3% of total score variance, so leaderboard order reflects task specialization rather than a general capability advantage.
Exploring LLM Autoscoring Reliability in Large-Scale Writing Assessments Using Generalizability Theory
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
This study investigates the estimation of reliability for large language models (LLMs) in scoring writing tasks from the AP Chinese Language and Culture Exam. Using generalizability theory, the research evaluates and compares score consistency between human and AI raters across two types of AP Chinese free-response writing tasks: story narration and email response. These essays were independently scored by two trained human raters and seven AI raters. Each essay received four scores: one holistic score and three analytic scores corresponding to the domains of task completion, delivery, and language use. Results indicate that although human raters produced more reliable scores overall, LLMs demonstrated reasonable consistency under certain conditions, particularly for story narration tasks. Composite scoring that incorporates both human and AI raters improved reliability, which supports that hybrid scoring models may offer benefits for large-scale writing assessments.
fields
cs.AI 1years
2026 1verdicts
CONDITIONAL 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Deployment Decision Reliability: A Generalizability-Theory Framework for Sizing Long-Horizon Agent Evaluations
Across three enterprise agent benchmarks, agent main effects are under 3% of total score variance, so leaderboard order reflects task specialization rather than a general capability advantage.