Controlled evaluation reveals low credit locality and directional errors in LLM automated grading, indicating that overall score agreement does not ensure valid rubric-based evaluation.
Large language models are increasingly used for automated grading, but final-score agreement does not reveal whether credit is assigned to the rubric element affected by a response change. This study introduces CreditTrace-LLM, a controlled framework for auditing directional responsiveness, credit locality, paraphrase stability, and correspondence with expert evaluations in rubric-guided grading. The evaluation used 500 response families across ten questions, equally divided between technical and argumentative tasks. Each family included a baseline response (C0), a positive intervention adding rubric-relevant evidence (C+), a negative intervention removing or weakening such evidence (C−), and a placebo paraphrase (CP) constructed through lexical or syntactic reformulation with the intention of preserving rubric-relevant meaning. Eight local open-weight LLM graders produced 15,999 structurally valid Gold-point-level outputs from 16,000 expected evaluations. Targeted Gold-point scores changed in the expected direction in 75.7% of C+ comparisons and 50.2% of C− comparisons. Localized directional success was lower under C+ and C−, at 31.5% and 21.3%, respectively, indicating frequent non-target score changes. Under CP, total-score stability was 75.4%, while complete-profile stability was 73.6%. Direction concordance with the mean expert score change was 69.8% for C+, 47.4% for C−, and 18.2% for CP. The CP condition also showed substantial variability in expert scoring, particularly for argumentative responses, indicating that intended rubric-relevant meaning preservation did not guarantee score invariance. Final-score behavior alone is insufficient for validating rubric-guided LLM grading. CreditTrace-LLM therefore evaluates target responsiveness, credit locality, paraphrase stability, and traceable Gold-point-level outputs as complementary diagnostic dimensions rather than as predefined criteria for acceptable grading performance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anghel et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: