Haowei Hua

Hong Jiao, Hanna Choi, Haowei Hua

This study explored the utilities of rationales generated by GPT-4.1 and GPT-5 in automated scoring using Prompt 6 essays from the 2012 Kaggle ASAP data. Essay-based scoring was compared with rationale-based scoring. The study found in general essay-based scoring performed better than rationale-based scoring with higher Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK). However, rationale-based scoring led to higher scoring accuracy in terms of F1 scores for score 0 which had less representation due to class imbalance issues. The ensemble modeling of essay-based scoring models increased the scoring accuracy at both specific score levels and across all score levels. The ensemble modeling of essay-based scoring and each of the rationale-based scoring performed about the same. Further ensemble of essay-based scoring and both rationale-based scoring yielded the best scoring accuracy with QWK of 0.870 compared with 0.848 reported in literature.

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.