Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates methods for calibrating the confidence of LLM graders to predict when their outputs are likely to be correct, enabling selective automation of grading tasks. They compare self-reported confidence, self-consistency voting, and token probability across seven LLMs (4B-120B) on three educational datasets. Results show that self-reported confidence consistently achieves the best calibration, and larger models exhibit better calibration, suggesting a practical approach for identifying reliable grading predictions.
Forget fancy ensembling – simply asking an LLM how confident it is in its grading is the most reliable way to predict its accuracy, and it's far cheaper than self-consistency voting.
Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise for automated grading, but their outputs can be unreliable. Rather than improving grading accuracy directly, we address a complementary problem: \textit{predicting when an LLM grader is likely to be correct}. This enables selective automation where high-confidence predictions are processed automatically while uncertain cases are flagged for human review. We compare three confidence estimation methods (self-reported confidence, self-consistency voting, and token probability) across seven LLMs of varying scale (4B to 120B parameters) on three educational datasets: RiceChem (long-answer chemistry), SciEntsBank, and Beetle (short-answer science). Our experiments reveal that self-reported confidence consistently achieves the best calibration across all conditions (avg ECE 0.166 vs 0.229 for self-consistency). Surprisingly, self-consistency remains 38\% worse despite requiring 5$\times$ the inference cost. Larger models exhibit substantially better calibration though gains vary by dataset and method (e.g., a 28\% ECE reduction for self-reported), with GPT-OSS-120B achieving the best calibration (avg ECE 0.100) and strong discrimination (avg AUC 0.668). We also observe that confidence is strongly top-skewed across methods, creating a ``confidence floor'' that practitioners must account for when setting thresholds. These findings suggest that simply asking LLMs to report their confidence provides a practical approach for identifying reliable grading predictions. Code is available \href{https://github.com/sonkar-lab/llm_grading_calibration}{here}.
