Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Can Large Language Models Automatically Score Proficiency of Written Essays?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2403.06149 v2 pith:JF2RVPXL submitted 2024-03-10 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords modelsllmsessaysperformancetaskchatgptlanguagelarge
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Although several methods were proposed to address the problem of automated essay scoring (AES) in the last 50 years, there is still much to desire in terms of effectiveness. Large Language Models (LLMs) are transformer-based models that demonstrate extraordinary capabilities on various tasks. In this paper, we test the ability of LLMs, given their powerful linguistic knowledge, to analyze and effectively score written essays. We experimented with two popular LLMs, namely ChatGPT and Llama. We aim to check if these models can do this task and, if so, how their performance is positioned among the state-of-the-art (SOTA) models across two levels, holistically and per individual writing trait. We utilized prompt-engineering tactics in designing four different prompts to bring their maximum potential to this task. Our experiments conducted on the ASAP dataset revealed several interesting observations. First, choosing the right prompt depends highly on the model and nature of the task. Second, the two LLMs exhibited comparable average performance in AES, with a slight advantage for ChatGPT. Finally, despite the performance gap between the two LLMs and SOTA models in terms of predictions, they provide feedback to enhance the quality of the essays, which can potentially help both teachers and students.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. WrAFT: a Modularized Automated Writing Evaluation System for Argumentative Essays

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    WrAFT, a modular LLM system, scores TOEFL essays with QWK 0.84/RMSE 0.44 and generates surface and deep feedback that human raters approve 93-96% of the time.

  2. CAFES: A Collaborative Multi-Agent Framework for Multi-Granular Multimodal Essay Scoring

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A student-teacher multi-agent pipeline with positive-only feedback improves QWK agreement with human essay scores by 21% on a multimodal benchmark, with gains concentrated in traits where baselines were weakest.

Pith tools