Cheating Automatic Short Answer Grading: On the Adversarial Usage of Adjectives and Adverbs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2201.08318v1
• Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 17:34:33 GMT
• Title: Cheating Automatic Short Answer Grading: On the Adversarial Usage of Adjectives and Adverbs
• Authors: Anna Filighera, Sebastian Ochs, Tim Steuer, Thomas Tregel
• Abstract summary: We devise a black-box adversarial attack tailored to the educational short answer grading scenario to investigate the grading models' robustness. We observed a loss of prediction accuracy between 10 and 22 percentage points using the state-of-the-art models BERT and T5. Based on our experiments, we provide recommendations for utilizing automatic grading systems more safely in practice.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Automatic grading models are valued for the time and effort saved during the instruction of large student bodies. Especially with the increasing digitization of education and interest in large-scale standardized testing, the popularity of automatic grading has risen to the point where commercial solutions are widely available and used. However, for short answer formats, automatic grading is challenging due to natural language ambiguity and versatility. While automatic short answer grading models are beginning to compare to human performance on some datasets, their robustness, especially to adversarially manipulated data, is questionable. Exploitable vulnerabilities in grading models can have far-reaching consequences ranging from cheating students receiving undeserved credit to undermining automatic grading altogether - even when most predictions are valid. In this paper, we devise a black-box adversarial attack tailored to the educational short answer grading scenario to investigate the grading models' robustness. In our attack, we insert adjectives and adverbs into natural places of incorrect student answers, fooling the model into predicting them as correct. We observed a loss of prediction accuracy between 10 and 22 percentage points using the state-of-the-art models BERT and T5. While our attack made answers appear less natural to humans in our experiments, it did not significantly increase the graders' suspicions of cheating. Based on our experiments, we provide recommendations for utilizing automatic grading systems more safely in practice.

Related papers

• Auditing an Automatic Grading Model with deep Reinforcement Learning [0.0]
  We explore the use of deep reinforcement learning to audit an automatic short answer grading (ASAG) model. We show that a high level of agreement to human ratings does not give sufficient evidence that an ASAG model is infallible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-11T20:07:09Z)
• Beyond human subjectivity and error: a novel AI grading system [67.410870290301]
  The grading of open-ended questions is a high-effort, high-impact task in education. Recent breakthroughs in AI technology might facilitate such automation, but this has not been demonstrated at scale. We introduce a novel automatic short answer grading (ASAG) system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-07T13:49:59Z)
• Automatic Short Math Answer Grading via In-context Meta-learning [2.0263791972068628]
  We study the problem of automatic short answer grading for students' responses to math questions. We use MathBERT, a variant of the popular language model BERT adapted to mathematical content, as our base model. Second, we use an in-context learning approach that provides scoring examples as input to the language model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-30T16:26:02Z)
• Towards Trustworthy AutoGrading of Short, Multi-lingual, Multi-type Answers [2.2000998828262652]
  This study uses a large dataset consisting of about 10 million question-answer pairs from multiple languages. We show how to improve the accuracy of automatically graded answers, achieving accuracy equivalent to that of teaching assistants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-02T12:17:24Z)
• Few-shot Instruction Prompts for Pretrained Language Models to Detect Social Biases [55.45617404586874]
  We propose a few-shot instruction-based method for prompting pre-trained language models (LMs) We show that large LMs can detect different types of fine-grained biases with similar and sometimes superior accuracy to fine-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-15T04:19:52Z)
• AES Systems Are Both Overstable And Oversensitive: Explaining Why And Proposing Defenses [66.49753193098356]
  We investigate the reason behind the surprising adversarial brittleness of scoring models. Our results indicate that autoscoring models, despite getting trained as "end-to-end" models, behave like bag-of-words models. We propose detection-based protection models that can detect oversensitivity and overstability causing samples with high accuracies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-24T03:49:38Z)
• My Teacher Thinks The World Is Flat! Interpreting Automatic Essay Scoring Mechanism [71.34160809068996]
  Recent work shows that automated scoring systems are prone to even common-sense adversarial samples. We utilize recent advances in interpretability to find the extent to which features such as coherence, content and relevance are important for automated scoring mechanisms. We also find that since the models are not semantically grounded with world-knowledge and common sense, adding false facts such as the world is flat'' actually increases the score instead of decreasing it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-27T06:19:20Z)
• Improving Robustness by Augmenting Training Sentences with Predicate-Argument Structures [62.562760228942054]
  Existing approaches to improve robustness against dataset biases mostly focus on changing the training objective. We propose to augment the input sentences in the training data with their corresponding predicate-argument structures. We show that without targeting a specific bias, our sentence augmentation improves the robustness of transformer models against multiple biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-23T16:22:05Z)
• Evaluation Toolkit For Robustness Testing Of Automatic Essay Scoring Systems [64.4896118325552]
  We evaluate the current state-of-the-art AES models using a model adversarial evaluation scheme and associated metrics. We find that AES models are highly overstable. Even heavy modifications(as much as 25%) with content unrelated to the topic of the questions do not decrease the score produced by the models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-14T03:49:43Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.