TransGAT: Transformer-Based Graph Neural Networks for Multi-Dimensional Automated Essay Scoring

Areej Alhothali; Hind Aljuaid; Hussein Assalahi; Ohoud Al-Zamzami

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 73 references

TransGAT: Transformer-Based Graph Neural Networks for Multi-Dimensional Automated Essay Scoring

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Hybrid Transformer-GAT model scores essays at 0.854 average QWK

desk verdict Plausible architecture, but the headline result is confounded by model-scale and protocol differences, and the cross-prompt claim is not evaluated. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.01640 v1 pith:LARJBSCX submitted 2025-09-01 cs.CL cs.LG

Hind Aljuaid , Areej Alhothali , Ohoud Al-Zamzami , Hussein Assalahi This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.LG

keywords AutomatedEssayScoringGraphAttentionNetworksTransformerfine-tuningAnalyticELLIPSEcorpusSyntacticdependencyCross-promptQuadraticWeightedKappa

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that automated essay scoring improves when contextual Transformer embeddings are combined with Graph Attention Networks that use syntactic dependencies as edges. The proposed model, TransGAT, pairs each fine-tuned Transformer (BERT, RoBERTa, or DeBERTaV3) with a separate GAT: one stream predicts from the whole essay, the other from token-level graphs, and the two predictions are summed. On the ELLIPSE corpus of essays written by English language learners, RoBERTa-large-GAT reaches an average Quadratic Weighted Kappa of 0.854 across six analytic traits, which the authors report as surpassing two baseline studies. If true, this would support analytic, multi-dimensional scoring that can give learners feedback on grammar, vocabulary, and cohesion rather than a single holistic grade.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the two-stream prediction pair: a fine-tuned Transformer provides both the essay-level [CLS] embedding and contextualized token embeddings, while a two-layer GAT with four attention heads propagates information over a syntactic dependency graph built by Stanza; global mean pooling converts node updates into a graph embedding, and the essay-level and graph-level outputs are added. The GAT is the component that differentiates this from a plain Transformer baseline: it learns a weight for each neighboring token rather than treating all neighbors equally, which the paper argues suits essays where relationships between words vary in importance.

What would settle it

Run the same fine-tuned Transformer backbone (e.g., RoBERTa-large) with and without the GAT stream, keeping the identical train/validation/test split, hyperparameters, and random seeds on ELLIPSE; if adding the GAT does not raise QWK, the claimed contribution collapses. Reporting the split and seeds publicly would settle whether the reported margin over Sun et al. (2024) and Chen et al. (2024) is due to protocol differences.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

TransGAT claims that attaching a Graph Attention Network to a fine-tuned Transformer improves analytic essay scoring beyond what a Transformer alone can do. Each model pair is trained with two streams: the [CLS] embedding drives an essay-level regression, while the same model's token embeddings are treated as nodes in a graph with edges drawn from Stanza's syntactic dependency parse; two GAT layers update the nodes, mean pooling produces a graph-level vector, and the two outputs are summed to score six traits. On the ELLIPSE corpus, the paper reports that RoBERTa-large-GAT delivers an average QWK of 0.854, beating RoBERTa-base and DeBERTaV3-base baselines and posting top scores on four of si

Load-bearing premise

The reported advantage over baselines assumes the comparison was run on the same data split and training protocol; the paper never specifies its own split or seeds, so the 0.029 QWK lead may reflect model size or data handling rather than the graph attention mechanism itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If TransGAT's reported results hold, RoBERTa-large-GAT alone delivers near-perfect agreement (0.854 QWK) across six analytic traits on ELLIPSE, suggesting deployable multi-trait scoring for learner essays.
Analytic scoring becomes feasible for English language learners: the model produces separate scores for cohesion, syntax, vocabulary, phraseology, grammar, and conventions, enabling targeted feedback.
The syntactic-dependency graph construction can be swapped for other parsers or edge definitions without changing the two-stream architecture, since the paper reports that varying parsers, optimizers, and schedulers affected performance.
Because the method does not rely on prompt-specific features, cross-prompt and multi-dimensional scoring can be addressed in one system, which the paper identifies as its research gap.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The 0.029 average-QWK margin between RoBERTa-large-GAT and Sun et al.'s RoBERTa-base is consistent with the added capacity of a large model; the paper does not isolate the GAT's contribution, so a fair test would compare RoBERTa-large with and without the GAT stream.
If the GAT's syntactic edges are what help most, then other relation types—semantic similarity between sentences, coreference links, or cross-essay edges—may generalize the design to heterogeneous graphs, which the paper lists as future work.
The same architecture is directly testable on other analytic-scoring corpora such as ASAP++ or ICLE++, whose different prompt and genre mixes would show whether the ELLIPSE gains transfer.
Applying the trained graph stream to morphologically rich languages would require an Arabic-aware dependency parser and tokenizer; the paper notes this direction, but the extent of the gain there is untested.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the paper builds a reasonable hybrid—a fine-tuned Transformer encoder feeding a GAT on syntactic dependency trees—for multi-trait essay scoring, using the ELLIPSE corpus. That is a legitimate extension of previous Transformer+GCN work. The architecture is spelled out clearly and the GAT machinery is standard. The choice of ELLIPSE over ASAP is sensible for analytic scoring, and the per-trait QWK table is a useful breakdown.

The problem is that the paper's main claim—'outperforms baseline models'—rests on Table 3, which is not a controlled comparison. The best TransGAT row is RoBERTa-large-GAT; the baselines are RoBERTa-base from Sun et al. and DeBERTaV3-base from Chen et al. There is no reimplementation of those baselines under the same train/validation/test split, and the split itself is not disclosed. So the 0.029 QWK margin over Sun et al. could be due to model scale, data handling, or random seeds. The paper also never ablates: no RoBERTa-large without GAT, and no RoBERTa-base with GAT, so we can't attribute the gain to the graph component. Section 4.4 says they selected the best results from many configurations, which further inflates the reported numbers.

The cross-prompt part of the claimed novelty is unsupported. The graph edges are intra-essay syntactic dependencies, not cross-essay relations, and no cross-prompt experiment is run. The Introduction motivates the method with 'relationships across multiple texts,' but the actual model models relationships within one essay. That mismatch should be fixed, either by removing the cross-prompt claim or by adding a held-out-prompt evaluation.

None of this means the architecture is bad. The components are well-known and the combination is plausible for capturing syntactic structure that a Transformer might underweight. The paper is honest about what it does, and the related work is adequate, though it does not engage closely with the closest Transformer+GCN baselines. The issue is evidence, not idea.

Who gets value: someone entering analytic AES who wants a template for Transformer+GAT hybrids. I would not cite the empirical result as established, but the architecture description is usable.

Recommendation: send it to peer review with a request for major revision. A referee should demand matched baselines, a disclosed split, an ablation of the GAT stream, and either a real cross-prompt evaluation or a revised scope statement. The paper deserves a serious referee because the architectural idea is sound and the field needs more multi-dimensional AES work on modern datasets.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TransGAT, an architecture for multi-dimensional automated essay scoring (AES) on the ELLIPSE corpus. In each variant, a fine-tuned Transformer (BERT-large, RoBERTa-large, or DeBERTaV3-large) is used in two streams: a [CLS]-based prediction stream and a token-level GAT stream whose edges come from Stanza syntactic dependency parses. The two streams are combined by sum fusion (Eq. 8) and trained with MSE loss over six analytic traits. The authors report QWK scores for the three TransGAT variants and compare them with two previously published baselines, claiming that RoBERTa-large-GAT achieves the best average QWK of 0.854 and outperforms the baseline models. The paper also claims to be the first to integrate Transformer embeddings with GATs for AES while jointly addressing cross-prompt and multi-dimensional scoring.

Significance. If the claimed performance advantage were established under a controlled protocol, the combination of contextual Transformer embeddings with a GAT over syntactic dependency graphs would be a reasonable and potentially useful contribution to analytic AES. The GAT formulation in Section 3.2.3 is standard and correctly presented, the choice of ELLIPSE is appropriate for multi-dimensional scoring, and the architecture is clearly described. However, as presented, the headline empirical claim rests on an uncontrolled comparison with published baseline numbers, the contribution of the GAT stream is not isolated by any ablation, and the cross-prompt novelty claim is not evaluated anywhere in the experiments. The central scientific significance is therefore not yet established.

major comments (4)

[§4.5, Table 3] The central claim that 'TransGAT outperforms baseline models' compares RoBERTa-large-GAT (avg QWK 0.854) against roberta-base (0.825) and debertaV3-base (0.685) taken directly from Sun et al. and Chen et al. The manuscript never specifies its own train/validation/test split, prompt partitioning, or random seeds, and the baselines are not re-run under a common protocol. The compared models differ simultaneously in backbone size and evaluation setup, so the 0.029-point margin over Sun et al. cannot be attributed to the GAT component. To support the abstract's claim, the authors must either re-run the baselines under the same split and training procedure or provide a precise statement of the protocol and demonstrate that it matches the baselines.
[§3.2.4 and §4.5] No ablation isolates the contribution of the GAT stream. The only novel component over a fine-tuned Transformer is the second stream and its fusion (Eq. 8), yet the paper never reports the performance of the Transformer-only stream with the same backbone (e.g., RoBERTa-large without GAT) or the GAT stream alone. Without such a control, the statement in Section 4.5 that 'the results highlight the advantage of incorporating GAT with Transformer architectures' is unsupported. This is a load-bearing point for the paper's main architectural claim.
[§1 and §3.2.2] The paper claims to be 'the first to integrate Transformer-based embeddings with GATs for AES while jointly addressing cross-prompt and multi-dimensional scoring.' No cross-prompt experiment is reported: Section 4 evaluates only within the ELLIPSE dataset with no held-out-prompt protocol, and the GAT graph is built from intra-essay syntactic dependencies (Eq. 2), not from cross-essay relations. The motivation in Section 1 repeatedly refers to 'relationships between essays,' but the model does not model such relationships. The cross-prompt novelty claim should be either removed or substantiated with a true cross-prompt evaluation.
[§4.4] The reported results are selected from 'extensive experiments' in which the authors varied dependency parsers, dropout, learning rates, optimizers, schedulers, number of GAT layers and heads, activation functions, and batch sizes, and then present 'the best results from these experiments.' No number of runs, random seeds, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported. The headline QWK of 0.854 is therefore a best-of-many configuration and may be optimistically biased. The authors should report the evaluation protocol, the number of configurations tried, and either standard errors or the results of an appropriate significance test.

minor comments (5)

[§2.2] The sentence 'Building on this, the present study integrates Transformer-based contextual embeddings with GCNs...' should refer to GATs, since the proposed method uses Graph Attention Networks, not GCNs.
[Table 3] The row label 'debertaV-large-GAT' is inconsistent with the text's 'DeBERTaV3-large-GAT'. This should be corrected for clarity.
[§4.5] The explanation for lower Vocabulary performance says the GAT integration 'emphasizes relational and contextual information across essays,' but the graph edges are intra-essay syntactic dependencies. The phrase should be 'across words' or 'across tokens' to be consistent with Section 3.2.2.
[Figure 1] Figure 1 is dense and not fully legible in the text. Labeling the fusion operation and the pooling step explicitly, or enlarging the relevant panels, would help readers connect the figure to Equations (1)–(8).
[§4.3] The statement that 'no dropout was applied during training, as this was found to improve regression performance' reports a modeling choice without showing the supporting experiment. Please provide the comparison or cite a prior result.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the empirical QWK result is a standard supervised evaluation, not a fitted input or self-citation chain.

full rationale

TransGAT is an empirical ML paper. Its central claim—that the proposed model achieves 0.854 average QWK on ELLIPSE—is a test-set performance number obtained by training on the dataset and evaluating with the standard QWK metric (Eq. 10). There is no derivation chain in which a parameter is fitted to the target result and then renamed as a prediction. The architecture equations (Eqs. 1–8) are standard Transformer/GAT/fusion components and do not assume the reported QWK. The baselines are cited from Sun et al. and Chen et al.; these are external works, not self-citations, so the confounded comparison (RoBERTa-large vs. RoBERTa-base, unreported split/protocol) is a correctness/validity risk, not circularity. The unsupported cross-prompt claim and the intra-essay GAT graph are omissions/inconsistencies, but they do not make the result equivalent to its inputs by construction. No load-bearing self-citation chain or ansatz-smuggling appears. Therefore the paper is not circular; score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model uses only existing architectural components (Transformer, GAT) and standard NLP tools. No new entities are introduced. The free parameters are the trained weights and hand-selected hyperparameters. The key assumptions are that syntactic dependency graphs are useful for analytic scoring and that the reported evaluation is conducted under a consistent protocol, which is not demonstrated.

free parameters (5)

Transformer model weights (BERT/RoBERTa/DeBERTaV3 large) = Pre-trained and fine-tuned on ELLIPSE
All performance depends on these fitted weights; different pretrained models yield different QWK scores.
GAT weights = Trained on ELLIPSE
Two GAT layers with four attention heads trained on the essay data.
Maximum sequence length = 1024 for DeBERTaV3, 512 for others
Chosen by hand based on model capacity; affects inputs and results.
Fusion weights = Sum of two stream outputs (Eq. 8)
The two streams are combined by simple addition; no learned fusion weights.
Hyperparameters = LR 1e-5 / 1e-3, epochs 6, batch 4, no dropout
Selected by systematic tuning; best configuration reported in Table 2.

assumptions (5)

standard math GAT equations (attention coefficients, softmax, LeakyReLU) are valid
Used in Section 3.2.3; standard graph attention network formulation.
domain assumption Syntactic dependency parse from Stanza captures grammar and cohesion-relevant structure
Core assumption for the GAT stream; not validated against alternative graph constructions.
domain assumption MSE loss over six traits is an appropriate training objective for QWK
Section 3.3; assumes minimizing MSE improves agreement on ordinal scores.
ad hoc to paper The sum fusion of the two streams is a valid predictor
Eq. (8) simply adds essay-level and graph-level predictions; no learned weighting or justification.
domain assumption The ELLIPSE dataset labels are reliable
Relies on the dataset's published inter-rater reliability; not independently verified in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TransGAT: Transformer-Based Graph Neural Networks for Multi-Dimensional Automated Essay Scoring." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LARJBSCX

@misc{pith2026250901640,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TransGAT: Transformer-Based Graph Neural Networks for Multi-Dimensional Automated Essay Scoring},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LARJBSCX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01640}
}

read the original abstract

Essay writing is a critical component of student assessment, yet manual scoring is labor-intensive and inconsistent. Automated Essay Scoring (AES) offers a promising alternative, but current approaches face limitations. Recent studies have incorporated Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) into AES using static word embeddings that fail to capture contextual meaning, especially for polysemous words. Additionally, many methods rely on holistic scoring, overlooking specific writing aspects such as grammar, vocabulary, and cohesion. To address these challenges, this study proposes TransGAT, a novel approach that integrates fine-tuned Transformer models with GNNs for analytic scoring. TransGAT combines the contextual understanding of Transformers with the relational modeling strength of Graph Attention Networks (GAT). It performs two-stream predictions by pairing each fine-tuned Transformer (BERT, RoBERTa, and DeBERTaV3) with a separate GAT. In each pair, the first stream generates essay-level predictions, while the second applies GAT to Transformer token embeddings, with edges constructed from syntactic dependencies. The model then fuses predictions from both streams to produce the final analytic score. Experiments on the ELLIPSE dataset show that TransGAT outperforms baseline models, achieving an average Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK) of 0.854 across all analytic scoring dimensions. These findings highlight the potential of TransGAT to advance AES systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01640 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

[1]

, author Rus, V

author Ait Khayi, N. , author Rus, V. , year 2020 . title Graph convolutional networks for student answers assessment , in: booktitle Text, Speech, and Dialogue: 23rd International Conference, TSD 2020, Brno, Czech Republic, September 8--11, 2020, Proceedings 23 , organization Springer . pp. pages 532--540

work page 2020
[2]

, author Shi, R

author AlBadani, B. , author Shi, R. , author Dong, J. , author Al-Sabri, R. , author Moctard, O.B. , year 2022 . title Transformer-based graph convolutional network for sentiment analysis . journal Applied Sciences volume 12 , pages 1316

work page 2022
[3]

, author Alzahrani, S

author Beseiso, M. , author Alzahrani, S. , year 2020 . title An empirical analysis of bert embedding for automated essay scoring . journal International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications volume 11

work page 2020
[4]

, author Alzubi, O.A

author Beseiso, M. , author Alzubi, O.A. , author Rashaideh, H. , year 2021 . title A novel automated essay scoring approach for reliable higher educational assessments . journal Journal of Computing in Higher Education volume 33 , pages 727--746

work page 2021
[5]

, author Tang, H

author Bhatti, U.A. , author Tang, H. , author Wu, G. , author Marjan, S. , author Hussain, A. , year 2023 . title Deep learning with graph convolutional networks: An overview and latest applications in computational intelligence . journal International Journal of Intelligent Systems volume 2023 , pages 8342104

work page 2023
[6]

, year 2019

author Cai, C. , year 2019 . title Automatic essay scoring with recurrent neural network , in: booktitle Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on High Performance Compilation, Computing and Communications , pp. pages 1--7

work page 2019
[7]

, author Zheng, V.W

author Cai, H. , author Zheng, V.W. , author Chang, K.C.C. , year 2018 . title A comprehensive survey of graph embedding: Problems, techniques, and applications . journal IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering volume 30 , pages 1616--1637

work page 2018
[8]

, author Li, X

author Chen, M. , author Li, X. , year 2018 . title Relevance-based automated essay scoring via hierarchical recurrent model , in: booktitle 2018 International Conference on Asian Language Processing (IALP) , organization IEEE . pp. pages 378--383

work page 2018

Show all 73 references

[9]

, author Lan, Y

author Chen, S. , author Lan, Y. , author Yuan, Z. , year 2024 . title A multi-task automated assessment system for essay scoring , in: booktitle International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education , organization Springer . pp. pages 276--283

2024
[10]

, author Li, X

author Chen, Y. , author Li, X. , year 2023 . title Pmaes: prompt-mapping contrastive learning for cross-prompt automated essay scoring , in: booktitle Proceedings of the 61st annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (volume 1: long papers) , pp. pages 1...

2023
[11]

, author Quan, Y

author Chen, Z. , author Quan, Y. , author Qian, D. , year 2020 . title Automatic essay scoring model based on multi-channel cnn and lstm , in: booktitle BenchCouncil International Federated Intelligent Computing and Block Chain Conferences , organization Springer . pp. pages 337--346

2020
[12]

, author Huang, J.X

author Cho, M. , author Huang, J.X. , author Kwon, O.W. , year 2024 . title Dual-scale bert using multi-trait representations for holistic and trait-specific essay grading . journal ETRI Journal volume 46 , pages 82--95

2024
[13]

, author Tian, Y

author Crossley, S. , author Tian, Y. , author Baffour, P. , author Franklin, A. , author Kim, Y. , author Morris, W. , author Benner, M. , author Picou, A. , author Boser, U. , year 2023 . title The english language learner insight, proficiency and skills evaluation (ellipse)...

2023
[14]

, author Chang, M.W

author Devlin, J. , author Chang, M.W. , author Lee, K. , author Toutanova, K. , year 2019 . title Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding , in: booktitle Proceedings of the 2019 conference of the North American chapter of the associati...

2019
[15]

, author Kim, Y

author Do, H. , author Kim, Y. , author Lee, G.G. , year 2023 . title Prompt-and trait relation-aware cross-prompt essay trait scoring , in: booktitle Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 , pp. pages 1538--1551

2023
[16]

, author Pechenizkiy, M

author Doewes, A. , author Pechenizkiy, M. , year 2020 . title Structural explanation of automated essay scoring. , in: booktitle EDM

2020
[17]

, author Huang, H

author Gao, W. , author Huang, H. , year 2021 . title A gating context-aware text classification model with bert and graph convolutional networks . journal Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems volume 40 , pages 4331--4343

2021
[18]

, author Casas, J

author Gillioz, A. , author Casas, J. , author Mugellini, E. , author Abou Khaled, O. , year 2020 . title Overview of the transformer-based models for nlp tasks , in: booktitle 2020 15th Conference on computer science and information systems (FedCSIS) , organization IEEE . pp....

2020
[19]

, author Fangbing, L

author Haitao, W. , author Fangbing, L. , year 2022 . title A text classification method based on lstm and graph attention network [j] . journal Connection Science volume 34 , pages 2466--2480

2022
[20]

, author Gao, J

author He, P. , author Gao, J. , author Chen, W. , year 2021 . title Debertav3: Improving deberta using electra-style pre-training with gradient-disentangled embedding sharing (2021) . journal URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2111.09543

2021 arXiv
[21]

, author Liu, X

author He, P. , author Liu, X. , author Gao, J. , author Chen, W. , year 2020 . title Deberta: Decoding-enhanced bert with disentangled attention . journal arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.03654

2020 arXiv
[22]

, author Hassan, H.A

author Hussein, M.A. , author Hassan, H.A. , author Nassef, M. , year 2020 . title A trait-based deep learning automated essay scoring system with adaptive feedback . journal International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications volume 11

2020
[23]

, author Pawar, A

author Janda, H.K. , author Pawar, A. , author Du, S. , author Mago, V. , year 2019 . title Syntactic, semantic and sentiment analysis: The joint effect on automated essay evaluation . journal IEEE Access volume 7 , pages 108486--108503

2019
[24]

, author Welling, M

author Kipf, T.N. , author Welling, M. , year 2017 . title Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks , in: booktitle International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

2017
[25]

, author Nam, H

author Lee, I. , author Nam, H. , year 2021 . title Automated essay scoring using recurrence over bert (robert) . journal Applied Linguistics volume 37 , pages 7--28

2021
[26]

, author Jeong, S

author Lee, Y. , author Jeong, S. , author Kim, H. , author Kim, T.i. , author Choi, S.W. , author Kim, H. , year 2023 . title Nc2t: Novel curriculum learning approaches for cross-prompt trait scoring , in: booktitle Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference o...

2023
[27]

, author Xi, X

author Li, F. , author Xi, X. , author Cui, Z. , author Li, D. , author Zeng, W. , year 2023 . title Automatic essay scoring method based on multi-scale features . journal Applied Sciences volume 13 , pages 6775

2023
[28]

, author Ng, V

author Li, S. , author Ng, V. , year 2024 a. title Automated essay scoring: Recent successes and future directions , in: booktitle Proceedings of the 33rd International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Jeju, Republic of Korea

2024
[29]

, author Ng, V

author Li, S. , author Ng, V. , year 2024 b. title Conundrums in cross-prompt automated essay scoring: Making sense of the state of the art , in: booktitle Proceedings of the 62nd annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (volume 1: long papers) , pp. pag...

2024
[30]

, author Ng, V

author Li, S. , author Ng, V. , year 2024 c. title Icle++: Modeling fine-grained traits for holistic essay scoring , in: booktitle Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Vo...

2024
[31]

, author Chen, M

author Li, X. , author Chen, M. , author Nie, J. , author Liu, Z. , author Feng, Z. , author Cai, Y. , year 2018 . title Coherence-based automated essay scoring using self-attention , in: booktitle Chinese computational linguistics and natural language processing based on natu...

2018
[32]

, author You, X

author Liu, X. , author You, X. , author Zhang, X. , author Wu, J. , author Lv, P. , year 2020 . title Tensor graph convolutional networks for text classification , in: booktitle Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , pp. pages 8409--8416

2020
[33]

, author Ott, M

author Liu, Y. , author Ott, M. , author Goyal, N. , author Du, J. , author Joshi, M. , author Chen, D. , author Levy, O. , author Lewis, M. , author Zettlemoyer, L. , author Stoyanov, V. , year 2019 . title Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach . journal arX...

2019 arXiv
[34]

o ller, J. , author Fleckenstein, J. , author Tr \

author Lohmann, J.F. , author Junge, F. , author M \"o ller, J. , author Fleckenstein, J. , author Tr \"u b, R. , author Keller, S. , author Jansen, T. , author Horbach, A. , year 2024 . title Neural networks or linguistic features?-comparing different machine-learning approac...

2024
[35]

, author Du, P

author Lu, Z. , author Du, P. , author Nie, J.Y. , year 2020 . title Vgcn-bert: augmenting bert with graph embedding for text classification , in: booktitle European Conference on Information Retrieval , organization Springer . pp. pages 369--382

2020
[36]

, author Li, X

author Ma, J. , author Li, X. , author Chen, M. , author Yang, W. , year 2021 . title Enhanced hierarchical structure features for automated essay scoring , in: booktitle China Conference on Information Retrieval , organization Springer . pp. pages 168--179

2021
[37]

, author Gangal, A

author Madala, D.S.V. , author Gangal, A. , author Krishna, S. , author Goyal, A. , author Sureka, A. , year 2018 . title An empirical analysis of machine learning models for automated essay grading . type Technical Report . PeerJ Preprints

2018
[38]

, author Bhattacharyya, P

author Mathias, S. , author Bhattacharyya, P. , year 2018 . title Asap++: Enriching the asap automated essay grading dataset with essay attribute scores , in: booktitle Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 2018)

2018
[39]

, author Bhattacharyya, P

author Mathias, S. , author Bhattacharyya, P. , year 2020 . title Can neural networks automatically score essay traits? , in: booktitle Proceedings of the Fifteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications , pp. pages 85--91

2020
[40]

, author Black, A.W

author Mayfield, E. , author Black, A.W. , year 2020 . title Should you fine-tune bert for automated essay scoring? , in: booktitle Proceedings of the Fifteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications , pp. pages 151--162

2020
[41]

, author On, B.W

author Misgna, H. , author On, B.W. , author Lee, I. , author Choi, G.S. , year 2025 . title A survey on deep learning-based automated essay scoring and feedback generation . journal Artificial Intelligence Review volume 58 , pages 1--40

2025
[42]

, author Fukumoto, F

author Muangkammuen, P. , author Fukumoto, F. , year 2020 . title Multi-task learning for automated essay scoring with sentiment analysis , in: booktitle Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 10th...

2020
[43]

, year 2022

author Ormerod, C.M. , year 2022 . title Mapping between hidden states and features to validate automated essay scoring using deberta models . journal Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling volume 64 , pages 495--526

2022
[44]

, author Sanampudi, S.K

author Ramesh, D. , author Sanampudi, S.K. , year 2022 . title An automated essay scoring systems: a systematic literature review . journal Artificial Intelligence Review volume 55 , pages 2495--2527

2022
[45]

, author Bassoo, V

author Ramnarain-Seetohul, V. , author Bassoo, V. , author Rosunally, Y. , year 2022 . title Similarity measures in automated essay scoring systems: A ten-year review . journal Education and Information Technologies volume 27 , pages 5573--5604

2022
[46]

, author Lu, W

author Ren, H. , author Lu, W. , author Xiao, Y. , author Chang, X. , author Wang, X. , author Dong, Z. , author Fang, D. , year 2022 . title Graph convolutional networks in language and vision: A survey . journal Knowledge-Based Systems volume 251 , pages 109250

2022
[47]

, author He, L

author Ridley, R. , author He, L. , author Dai, X.y. , author Huang, S. , author Chen, J. , year 2021 . title Automated cross-prompt scoring of essay traits , in: booktitle Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , pp. pages 13745--13753

2021
[48]

, author Stevanus, V

author Salim, Y. , author Stevanus, V. , author Barlian, E. , author Sari, A.C. , author Suhartono, D. , year 2019 . title Automated english digital essay grader using machine learning , in: booktitle 2019 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Education ...

2019
[49]

, author Tropmann-Frick, M

author Schomacker, T. , author Tropmann-Frick, M. , year 2021 . title Language representation models: An overview . journal Entropy volume 23 , pages 1422

2021
[50]

, author Kabra, A

author Sharma, A. , author Kabra, A. , author Kapoor, R. , year 2021 . title Feature enhanced capsule networks for robust automatic essay scoring , in: booktitle Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases , organization Springer . pp. pa...

2021
[51]

, author Goyal, A

author Sharma, S. , author Goyal, A. , year 2020 . title Automated essay grading: An empirical analysis of ensemble learning techniques , in: booktitle Computational Methods and Data Engineering: Proceedings of ICMDE 2020, Volume 2 . publisher Springer , pp. pages 343--362

2020
[52]

, author Chen, J

author She, X. , author Chen, J. , author Chen, G. , year 2022 . title Joint learning with bert-gcn and multi-attention for event text classification and event assignment . journal IEEE Access volume 10 , pages 27031--27040

2022
[53]

, author Gierl, M.J

author Shin, J. , author Gierl, M.J. , year 2022 . title Evaluating coherence in writing: Comparing the capacity of automated essay scoring technologies . journal Journal of Applied Testing Technology , pages 04--20

2022
[54]

, author Wang, R

author Sun, K. , author Wang, R. , year 2024 . title Automatic essay multi-dimensional scoring with fine-tuning and multiple regression . journal arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01198

2024 arXiv
[55]

, author Gunawan, A.A.S

author Susanto, H. , author Gunawan, A.A.S. , author Hasani, M.F. , year 2023 . title Development of automated essay scoring system using deberta as a transformer-based language model , in: booktitle Proceedings of the Computational Methods in Systems and Software . publisher ...

2023
[56]

, author Wang, C

author Tan, H. , author Wang, C. , author Duan, Q. , author Lu, Y. , author Zhang, H. , author Li, R. , year 2023 . title Automatic short answer grading by encoding student responses via a graph convolutional network . journal Interactive Learning Environments volume 31 , page...

2023
[57]

, year 2021

author Uto, M. , year 2021 . title A review of deep-neural automated essay scoring models . journal Behaviormetrika volume 48 , pages 459--484

2021
[58]

, author Okano, M

author Uto, M. , author Okano, M. , year 2020 . title Robust neural automated essay scoring using item response theory , in: booktitle International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education , publisher Springer , address Cham . pp. pages 549--561

2020
[59]

, year 2017

author Vaswani, A. , year 2017 . title Attention is all you need . journal Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems

2017
[60]

, author Cucurull, G

author Veli c kovi \'c , P. , author Cucurull, G. , author Casanova, A. , author Romero, A. , author Lio, P. , author Bengio, Y. , year 2017 . title Graph attention networks . journal arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903

2017 arXiv
[61]

, author Lazaros, K

author Vrahatis, A.G. , author Lazaros, K. , author Kotsiantis, S. , year 2024 . title Graph attention networks: a comprehensive review of methods and applications . journal Future Internet volume 16 , pages 318

2024
[62]

, year 2023

author Wang, J. , year 2023 . title A study of scoring english tests using an automatic scoring model incorporating semantics . journal Automatic Control and Computer Sciences volume 57 , pages 514--522

2023
[63]

, author Viboonlarp, C

author Wangkriangkri, P. , author Viboonlarp, C. , author Rutherford, A.T. , author Chuangsuwanich, E. , year 2020 . title A comparative study of pretrained language models for automated essay scoring with adversarial inputs , in: booktitle 2020 IEEE REGION 10 CONFERENCE (TENC...

2020
[64]

, author Malcolm, G

author West, H. , author Malcolm, G. , author Keywood, S. , author Hill, J. , year 2019 . title Writing a successful essay . journal Journal of Geography in Higher Education volume 43 , pages 609--617

2019
[65]

, author Liu, J

author Xia, L. , author Liu, J. , author Zhang, Z. , year 2019 . title Automatic essay scoring model based on two-layer bi-directional long-short term memory network , in: booktitle Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Computer Science and Artificial Intelli...

2019
[66]

, author Ma, W

author Xiao, C. , author Ma, W. , author Song, Q. , author Xu, S.X. , author Zhang, K. , author Wang, Y. , author Fu, Q. , year 2025 . title Human-ai collaborative essay scoring: A dual-process framework with llms , in: booktitle Proceedings of the 15th International Learning ...

2025
[67]

, author Tang, X

author Xue, J. , author Tang, X. , author Zheng, L. , year 2021 . title A hierarchical bert-based transfer learning approach for multi-dimensional essay scoring . journal Ieee Access volume 9 , pages 125403--125415

2021
[68]

, author Cao, J

author Yang, R. , author Cao, J. , author Wen, Z. , author Wu, Y. , author He, X. , year 2020 . title Enhancing automated essay scoring performance via fine-tuning pre-trained language models with combination of regression and ranking , in: booktitle Findings of the Associatio...

2020
[69]

, author Zhong, J

author Yang, Y. , author Zhong, J. , year 2021 . title Automated essay scoring via example-based learning , in: booktitle International Conference on Web Engineering , organization Springer . pp. pages 201--208

2021
[70]

, author Mao, C

author Yao, L. , author Mao, C. , author Luo, Y. , year 2019 . title Graph convolutional networks for text classification , in: booktitle Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , pp. pages 7370--7377

2019
[71]

, author Yang, L

author Zhou, X. , author Yang, L. , author Fan, X. , author Ren, G. , author Yang, Y. , author Lin, H. , year 2021 . title Self-training vs pre-trained embeddings for automatic essay scoring , in: booktitle China Conference on Information Retrieval , organization Springer . pp...

2021
[72]

, author Sun, Y

author Zhu, W. , author Sun, Y. , year 2020 . title Automated essay scoring system using multi-model machine learning . journal MLNLP, BDIOT, ITCCMA, CSITY, DTMN, AIFZ, SIGPRO

2020
[73]

, author Bosni \'c , Z

author Zupanc, K. , author Bosni \'c , Z. , year 2018 . title Increasing accuracy of automated essay grading by grouping similar graders , in: booktitle Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Web Intelligence, Mining and Semantics , pp. pages 1--6

2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

, author Rus, V

author Ait Khayi, N. , author Rus, V. , year 2020 . title Graph convolutional networks for student answers assessment , in: booktitle Text, Speech, and Dialogue: 23rd International Conference, TSD 2020, Brno, Czech Republic, September 8--11, 2020, Proceedings 23 , organization Springer . pp. pages 532--540

work page 2020

[2] [2]

, author Shi, R

author AlBadani, B. , author Shi, R. , author Dong, J. , author Al-Sabri, R. , author Moctard, O.B. , year 2022 . title Transformer-based graph convolutional network for sentiment analysis . journal Applied Sciences volume 12 , pages 1316

work page 2022

[3] [3]

, author Alzahrani, S

author Beseiso, M. , author Alzahrani, S. , year 2020 . title An empirical analysis of bert embedding for automated essay scoring . journal International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications volume 11

work page 2020

[4] [4]

, author Alzubi, O.A

author Beseiso, M. , author Alzubi, O.A. , author Rashaideh, H. , year 2021 . title A novel automated essay scoring approach for reliable higher educational assessments . journal Journal of Computing in Higher Education volume 33 , pages 727--746

work page 2021

[5] [5]

, author Tang, H

author Bhatti, U.A. , author Tang, H. , author Wu, G. , author Marjan, S. , author Hussain, A. , year 2023 . title Deep learning with graph convolutional networks: An overview and latest applications in computational intelligence . journal International Journal of Intelligent Systems volume 2023 , pages 8342104

work page 2023

[6] [6]

, year 2019

author Cai, C. , year 2019 . title Automatic essay scoring with recurrent neural network , in: booktitle Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on High Performance Compilation, Computing and Communications , pp. pages 1--7

work page 2019

[7] [7]

, author Zheng, V.W

author Cai, H. , author Zheng, V.W. , author Chang, K.C.C. , year 2018 . title A comprehensive survey of graph embedding: Problems, techniques, and applications . journal IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering volume 30 , pages 1616--1637

work page 2018

[8] [8]

, author Li, X

author Chen, M. , author Li, X. , year 2018 . title Relevance-based automated essay scoring via hierarchical recurrent model , in: booktitle 2018 International Conference on Asian Language Processing (IALP) , organization IEEE . pp. pages 378--383

work page 2018