LLM-as-a-judge validity in physics assessment depends more on the task than the model

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly considered for automated assessment and feedback, understanding when LLM marking is valid is essential.

We evaluate LLM-as-a-judge marking across three physics assessment formats - structured questions, written essays, and scientific plots - comparing GPT-5.2, Grok 4.1, Claude Opus 4.5, DeepSeek-V3.2, Gemini Pro 3, and committee aggregations against human markers under blind, solution-provided, false-solution, and anchored conditions.

We distinguish absolute accuracy from rank-order agreement, since a marking system can match the distribution of human marks while failing to order responses by quality.

Across task types, performance is sharply task-dependent.

For blind university exam questions ($n=771$) and secondary and university structured questions ($n=1151$), models show robust rank-order agreement with human markers (Spearman $\rho > 0.6$), with official solutions reducing error and strengthening agreement.

False solutions degrade absolute accuracy, showing that models defer to provided references, but leave rank-ordering intact.

Essay marking behaves fundamentally differently.

Across $n=55$ scripts ($n=275$ essays), blind AI marking is harsher and more variable than human marking and adding a mark scheme does not improve rank-order agreement.

Anchored exemplars shift the AI mean close to the human mean and compress variance below the human standard deviation, but rank-order agreement remains near-zero.

For code-based plot elements ($n=1400$), models achieve high rank-order agreement ($\rho > 0.84$) with near-linear calibration.

Across all task types, validity tracks the structure of the assessment task - the extent to which marks can be mapped to explicit, observable grading features - and the reliability of the human benchmark, rather than raw model capability.