This work represents the first application of online control mechanisms to adaptively select prompting strategies in AES, transforming prompt selection from an offline hyperparameter optimization problem into an efficient online learning task.
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate strong capabilities in automated essay scoring (AES), but contemporary approaches typically employ fixed prompt selection, failing to address operational cost concerns and evolving optimal configurations. We propose a novel cost-aware approach that treats each prompt type as an arm in a multi-armed bandit (MAB) controller, enabling adaptive selection of optimal prompting strategies during inference. Our experiments on IELTS Writing Task 2 essays show that the MAB framework achieves comparable scoring accuracy to exhaustive grid search while reducing LLM calls by 78.4\% to find the best grading approach. We implemented four distinct grading recipes (multi-step vs. single-step assessment, with vs. without calibration examples) and found that the multi-step approach with examples achieves the highest accuracy. By tracking token usage and latency alongside agreement metrics, we produce the first cost-reliability learning curves for essay scoring, providing actionable insights for educational technology platforms that must balance operational costs against assessment validity. This work represents the first application of online control mechanisms to adaptively select prompting strategies in AES, transforming prompt selection from an offline hyperparameter optimization problem into an efficient online learning task.
This work introduces a Task-Aware Prompt Rewriter (TAPR), a model that reformulates user prompts into task-optimized prompts with the explicit goal of improving downstream LLM performance.
Oliver Savolainen, E. Bastianelli, H. Azarbonyad· arXiv.org· 1 citation
Despite their strong performance, large language models remain highly sensitive to prompt formulation. Prior work addresses this through refined data construction or through dedicated robustness objectives. We reproduce and compare these strategies under controlled conditions, and measure how effective they are in addressing models'prompt sensitivity. We find the current robustness fine-tuning methods improve over standard fine-tuning and in-context learning, but the best-to-worst prompt gap remains as high as 40-57% of performance. Moreover, the recent robustness-enhancing methods we test - CoIN for contrastive alignment and PPCL for consistency regularization - often fail to outperform the simplest data construction strategy: training on one template per batch. Our diagnostics explain these results. The auxiliary objectives move the quantity they penalize, but do not generalize beyond it. Additionally, data construction strategies differ due to the conflicting signs of per-template gradients on 57-64% of parameters. Thus, batches that mix formulations force the optimizer to reconcile competing updates instead of finding a shared, prompt-agnostic one.
Most automated essay scoring (AES) systems output a single holistic score without interpretable evidence and rely on closed APIs that introduce data privacy and cost barriers. We present ArguLens, an opensource, locally deployable system that decomposes AES into three decoupled components: a discourse-move classifier (Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct fine-tuned with LoRA on PERSUADE 2.0), a grade-independent LightGBM scorer over 31 linguistic and discourse features, and a label-aware feedback generator served through vLLM with a Qwen2.5-14BInstruct backbone. A Gradio web UI exposes pluggable inference backends and supports single-essay and batch scoring with downloadable per-essay breakdowns. On an essaydisjoint PERSUADE 2.0 test split, the logitprobe classifier achieves 82.6% accuracy and 0.727 macro-F1; under prompt-grouped 5-fold cross-validation the scorer reaches a mean QWK of 0.813 under an oracle discoursefeature protocol, and an ablation shows that adding gold discourse annotations yields an increment of +0.055 QWK over the lexical+syntactic configuration (paired t-test, p = 0.010). This is a component-level diagnostic rather than an end-to-end classifier-to-scorer result. The feedback generator ships with a structured evaluation protocol; its human-rater study is left to future work. The system is released under Apache 2.0 at https://github.com/wwrwbs/AI_AWE.
Weiran Wang, Hong-Xiang Shi, Huitao Tang et al.· 0 citations
This study examines the cross-prompt generalization and first-language (L1) scoring effects of a LoRA-adapted open-weight large language model (Gemma-3-27B-it) applied to automated essay scoring. Using the identical model and inference configuration reported in"AiAWE: An Open-Source LLM Automated Writing Evaluation System Using LoRA-Adapted Instruction-Tuned Models"(Gayed, 2026), which was fine-tuned on 480 argumentative essays from two prompts, we evaluate scoring accuracy on the full TOEFL11 corpus: 12,100 essays written by test-takers from 11 first-language backgrounds across eight prompts, none of which were seen during training. The model's raw scores (0.5-5.0) are mapped to the same three proficiency bands (low, medium, high) used by ETS, enabling direct comparison. The model achieved an overall band agreement of 77.79% and a quadratic weighted kappa of 0.702, with adjacent-band agreement of 99.98%. Accuracy was stable across all eight unseen prompts, with no advantage for prompts thematically related to the training data, indicating robust cross-prompt generalization. However, the model exhibited a systematic, L1-linked scoring offset. Within every proficiency band, essays from European-language backgrounds received consistently higher scores than essays from East-Asian-language backgrounds, a pattern not attributable to the composition of the fine-tuning data. This is the first large-scale L1 fairness analysis of a fine-tuned open-weight LLM for automated essay scoring.
Automated essay scoring (AES) enables scalable assessment and timely feedback but remains challenged by transformer input-length limitations, which can cause information loss when processing long essays. This study proposes a generative AI-assisted summarization framework to improve long-form essay representation while maintaining scoring reliability. Using the ASAP 2.0 dataset, we generate controlled-length summaries with three GPT-5 variants (GPT-5, GPT-5 mini, and GPT-5 nano) and use them as inputs for downstream AES models. To preserve original writing signals, handcrafted linguistic features extracted from full essays are integrated with summary representations to form a hybrid framework. The approach is evaluated in terms of scoring performance, summarization quality, and computational cost. Scoring reliability is measured using quadratic weighted kappa (QWK), while summary quality is assessed through lexical overlap, semantic similarity, information retention, and redundancy metrics. Results show that GPT-5 mini achieves the highest agreement with human ratings, whereas GPT-5 produces the strongest summarization quality. Summary quality decreases for higher-scoring essays, indicating that more complex writing is more difficult to compress without information loss. These findings reveal trade-offs among model capacity, summary fidelity, cost efficiency, and preservation of educational constructs. This study provides an initial controlled evaluation of GPT-based summarization for AES and identifies important baselines and ablation studies required for future generalization. Overall, generative AI summarization offers a promising approach for scalable writing assessment while requiring careful validation of information preservation and fairness.
