Search and Filter

Repository Feedback

Your feedback helps us improve the repository's content relevance and usability. Please share your thoughts to help us better serve researchers and practitioners.

Submit feedback

Submit a research study

Contribute to the repository:

Add a paper

SAS-Bench: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Evaluating Short Answer Scoring with Large Language Models

Authors
Peichao Lai,
Kexuan Zhang,
Yi Lin,
Linyihan Zhang,
Feiyang Ye,
Jinhao Yan,
Yanwei Xu,
Conghui He,
Yilei Wang,
Wentao Zhang,
Bin Cui
Date
Publisher
arXiv
Subjective Answer Grading (SAG) plays a crucial role in education, standardized testing, and automated assessment systems, particularly for evaluating short-form responses in Short Answer Scoring (SAS). However, existing approaches often produce coarse-grained scores and lack detailed reasoning. Although large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential as zero-shot evaluators, they remain susceptible to bias, inconsistencies with human judgment, and limited transparency in scoring decisions. To overcome these limitations, we introduce SAS-Bench, a benchmark specifically designed for LLM-based SAS tasks. SAS-Bench provides fine-grained, step-wise scoring, expert-annotated error categories, and a diverse range of question types derived from real-world subject-specific exams. This benchmark facilitates detailed evaluation of model reasoning processes and explainability. We also release an open-source dataset containing 1,030 questions and 4,109 student responses, each annotated by domain experts. Furthermore, we conduct comprehensive experiments with various LLMs, identifying major challenges in scoring science-related questions and highlighting the effectiveness of few-shot prompting in improving scoring accuracy. Our work offers valuable insights into the development of more robust, fair, and educationally meaningful LLM-based evaluation systems.
Study at a glance
  • Question: How well can artificial intelligence models grade and explain their evaluations of students' short written answers?
  • Setting and data: Real-world subject-specific exams, with 1,030 questions and 4,109 student responses annotated by domain experts.
  • Method: Tests how well various artificial intelligence models score student answers compared to expert evaluations.
Why it matters

Existing approaches to short-answer scoring often produce coarse-grained scores and lack detailed reasoning. While large language models show potential as evaluators, they remain susceptible to bias, inconsistencies with human judgment, and limited transparency in scoring decisions.

Key findings
  • Large language models struggled with scoring science questions across 4,109 student responses on real-world subject-specific exams.
  • Providing language models with a few example answers effectively improved their scoring accuracy.
  • Large language models remain susceptible to bias, inconsistencies with human judgment, and limited transparency in their scoring decisions.

Summary drafted with AI from the paper’s abstract and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.

What is the application?
Who is the user?