Hong Jiao

Ming Li, Nan Zhang, Chenrui Fan et al.

While Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) generate extensive chain-of-thought reasoning, we lack a principled framework for understanding how these thoughts are structured. In this paper, we introduce a novel approach by applying Schoenfeld's Episode Theory, a classic cognitive framework for human mathematical problem-solving, to analyze the reasoning traces of LRMs. We annotated thousands of sentences and paragraphs from model-generated solutions to math problems using seven cognitive labels (e.g., Plan, Implement, Verify). The result is the first publicly available benchmark for the fine-grained analysis of machine reasoning, including a large annotated corpus and detailed annotation guidebooks. Our preliminary analysis reveals distinct patterns in LRM reasoning, such as the transition dynamics between cognitive states. This framework provides a theoretically grounded methodology for interpreting LRM cognition and enables future work on more controllable and transparent reasoning systems.

Haowei Hua, Hong Jiao, Dan Song

Advances in automated scoring are closely aligned with advances in machine-learning and natural-language-processing techniques. With recent progress in large language models (LLMs), the use of ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, and other generative-AI chatbots for automated scoring has been explored. Given their strong reasoning capabilities, LLMs can also produce rationales to support the scores they assign. Thus, evaluating the rationales provided by both human and LLM raters can help improve the understanding of the reasoning that each type of rater applies when assigning a score. This study investigates the rationales of human and LLM raters to identify potential causes of scoring inconsistency. Using essays from a large-scale test, the scoring accuracy of GPT-4o, Gemini, and other LLMs is examined based on quadratic weighted kappa and normalized mutual information. Cosine similarity is used to evaluate the similarity of the rationales provided. In addition, clustering patterns in rationales are explored using principal component analysis based on the embeddings of the rationales. The findings of this study provide insights into the accuracy and ``thinking'' of LLMs in automated scoring, helping to improve the understanding of the rationales behind both human scoring and LLM-based automated scoring.

Qingshu Xu, Hong Jiao, Tianyi Zhou et al.

Accurate alignment of items to content standards is critical for valid score interpretation in large-scale assessments. This study evaluates three automated paradigms for aligning items with four domain and nineteen skill labels. First, we extracted embeddings and trained multiple classical supervised machine learning models, and further investigated the impact of dimensionality reduction on model performance. Second, we fine-tuned eight BERT model and its variants for both domain and skill alignment. Third, we explored ensemble learning with majority voting and stacking with multiple meta-models. The DeBERTa-v3-base achieved the highest weighted-average F1 score of 0.950 for domain alignment while the RoBERTa-large yielded the highest F1 score of 0.869 for skill alignment. Ensemble models did not surpass the best-performing language models. Dimension reduction enhanced linear classifiers based on embeddings but did not perform better than language models. This study demonstrated different methods in automated item alignment to content standards.}

Sydney Peters, Nan Zhang, Hong Jiao et al.

Item difficulty plays a crucial role in test performance, interpretability of scores, and equity for all test-takers, especially in large-scale assessments. Traditional approaches to item difficulty modeling rely on field testing and classical test theory (CTT)-based item analysis or item response theory (IRT) calibration, which can be time-consuming and costly. To overcome these challenges, text-based approaches leveraging machine learning and language models, have emerged as promising alternatives. This paper reviews and synthesizes 37 articles on automated item difficulty prediction in large-scale assessment settings published through May 2025. For each study, we delineate the dataset, difficulty parameter, subject domain, item type, number of items, training and test data split, input, features, model, evaluation criteria, and model performance outcomes. Results showed that although classic machine learning models remain relevant due to their interpretability, state-of-the-art language models, using both small and large transformer-based architectures, can capture syntactic and semantic patterns without the need for manual feature engineering. Uniquely, model performance outcomes were summarized to serve as a benchmark for future research and overall, text-based methods have the potential to predict item difficulty with root mean square error (RMSE) as low as 0.165, Pearson correlation as high as 0.87, and accuracy as high as 0.806. The review concludes by discussing implications for practice and outlining future research directions for automated item difficulty modeling.

Hong Jiao, Dan Song, Won-Chan Lee

Large language models (LLMs) have been widely explored for automated scoring in low-stakes assessment to facilitate learning and instruction. Empirical evidence related to which LLM produces the most reliable scores and induces least rater effects needs to be collected before the use of LLMs for automated scoring in practice. This study compared ten LLMs (ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4, ChatGPT 4o, OpenAI o1, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Gemini 1.5, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Gemini 2.0, as well as DeepSeek V3, and DeepSeek R1) with human expert raters in scoring two types of writing tasks. The accuracy of the holistic and analytic scores from LLMs compared with human raters was evaluated in terms of Quadratic Weighted Kappa. Intra-rater consistency across prompts was compared in terms of Cronbach Alpha. Rater effects of LLMs were evaluated and compared with human raters using the Many-Facet Rasch model. The results in general supported the use of ChatGPT 4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet with high scoring accuracy, better rater reliability, and less rater effects.