AERA Chat: An Interactive Platform for Automated Explainable Student Answer Assessment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.09507v2
• Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 20:32:22 GMT
• Title: AERA Chat: An Interactive Platform for Automated Explainable Student Answer Assessment
• Authors: Jiazheng Li, Artem Bobrov, Runcong Zhao, Cesare Aloisi, Yulan He,
• Abstract summary: AERA Chat is an interactive visualization platform designed for automated explainable student answer assessment.<n>AERA Chat leverages multiple language models (LLMs) to concurrently score student answers and generate explanatory rationales.<n>We demonstrate the effectiveness of our platform through evaluations of multiple rationale-generation methods on several datasets.
• Score: 15.969280805269976
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Explainability in automated student answer scoring systems is critical for building trust and enhancing usability among educators. Yet, generating high-quality assessment rationales remains challenging due to the scarcity of annotated data and the prohibitive cost of manual verification, prompting heavy reliance on rationales produced by large language models (LLMs), which are often noisy and unreliable. To address these limitations, we present AERA Chat, an interactive visualization platform designed for automated explainable student answer assessment. AERA Chat leverages multiple LLMs to concurrently score student answers and generate explanatory rationales, offering innovative visualization features that highlight critical answer components and rationale justifications. The platform also incorporates intuitive annotation and evaluation tools, supporting educators in marking tasks and researchers in evaluating rationale quality from different models. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our platform through evaluations of multiple rationale-generation methods on several datasets, showcasing its capability for facilitating robust rationale evaluation and comparative analysis.

Related papers

• CATArena: Evaluation of LLM Agents through Iterative Tournament Competitions [49.02422075498554]
  Large Language Model (LLM) agents have evolved from basic text generation to autonomously completing complex tasks through interaction with external tools.<n>In this work, we emphasize the importance of learning ability, including both self-improvement and peer-learning, as a core driver for agent evolution toward human-level intelligence.<n>We propose an iterative, competitive peer-learning framework, which allows agents to refine and optimize their strategies through repeated interactions and feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-30T15:22:53Z)
• WebDevJudge: Evaluating (M)LLMs as Critiques for Web Development Quality [62.43165871914528]
  We introduce WebDevJudge, a systematic benchmark for assessing LLM-as-a-judge performance in web development.<n>WebDevJudge comprises human preference labels over paired web implementations, annotated with structured and query-grounded rubrics.<n>In-depth analysis indicates this gap stems from fundamental model limitations, including failures in recognizing functional equivalence, verifying task feasibility, and mitigating bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-21T12:16:04Z)
• Teaching at Scale: Leveraging AI to Evaluate and Elevate Engineering Education [3.557803321422781]
  This article presents a scalable, AI-supported framework for qualitative student feedback using large language models.<n>The system employs hierarchical summarization, anonymization, and exception handling to extract actionable themes from open-ended comments.<n>We report on its successful deployment across a large college of engineering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-01T20:27:40Z)
• MTR-Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Multi-Turn Reasoning Evaluation [56.87891213797931]
  We present MTR-Bench for Large Language Models' Multi-Turn Reasoning evaluation.<n>Comprising 4 classes, 40 tasks, and 3600 instances, MTR-Bench covers diverse reasoning capabilities.<n>MTR-Bench features fully-automated framework spanning both dataset constructions and model evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T17:59:12Z)
• AutoLogi: Automated Generation of Logic Puzzles for Evaluating Reasoning Abilities of Large Language Models [86.83875864328984]
  We propose an automated method for synthesizing open-ended logic puzzles, and use it to develop a bilingual benchmark, AutoLogi. Our approach features program-based verification and controllable difficulty levels, enabling more reliable evaluation that better distinguishes models' reasoning abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-24T07:02:31Z)
• Transforming Student Evaluation with Adaptive Intelligence and Performance Analytics [0.0]
  This paper creates a system for the evaluation of students performance using Artificial intelligence. There are formats of questions in the system which comprises multiple choice, short answers and descriptive questions. The platform has intelligent learning progressions where the user will be able to monitor his/her performances to be recommended a certain level of performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T18:57:51Z)
• Human-Centered Design for AI-based Automatically Generated Assessment Reports: A Systematic Review [4.974197456441281]
  This study emphasizes the importance of reducing teachers' cognitive demands through user-centered and intuitive designs. It highlights the potential of diverse information presentation formats such as text, visual aids, and plots and advanced functionalities such as live and interactive features to enhance usability. The framework aims to address challenges in engaging teachers with technology-enhanced assessment results, facilitating data-driven decision-making, and providing personalized feedback to improve the teaching and learning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-30T16:20:07Z)
• An Automated Explainable Educational Assessment System Built on LLMs [12.970776782360366]
  AERA Chat is an automated educational assessment system designed for interactive and visual evaluations of student responses. Our system allows users to input questions and student answers, providing educators and researchers with insights into assessment accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T23:29:18Z)
• Automated Feedback in Math Education: A Comparative Analysis of LLMs for Open-Ended Responses [0.0]
  This study aims to explore the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in facilitating automated feedback in math education. We employ Mistral, a version of Llama catered to math, and fine-tune this model for evaluating student responses by leveraging a dataset of student responses and teacher-written feedback for middle-school math problems. We evaluate the model's performance in scoring accuracy and the quality of feedback by utilizing judgments from 2 teachers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T16:57:45Z)
• An Automatic and Cost-Efficient Peer-Review Framework for Language Generation Evaluation [29.81362106367831]
  Existing evaluation methods often suffer from high costs, limited test formats, the need of human references, and systematic evaluation biases. In contrast to previous studies that rely on human annotations, Auto-PRE selects evaluators automatically based on their inherent traits. Experimental results indicate our Auto-PRE achieves state-of-the-art performance at a lower cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T06:06:06Z)
• "My Grade is Wrong!": A Contestable AI Framework for Interactive Feedback in Evaluating Student Essays [6.810086342993699]
  This paper introduces CAELF, a Contestable AI Empowered LLM Framework for automating interactive feedback. CAELF allows students to query, challenge, and clarify their feedback by integrating a multi-agent system with computational argumentation. A case study on 500 critical thinking essays with user studies demonstrates that CAELF significantly improves interactive feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-11T17:59:01Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making. We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill. Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• Evaluating the Utility of Model Explanations for Model Development [54.23538543168767]
  We evaluate whether explanations can improve human decision-making in practical scenarios of machine learning model development. To our surprise, we did not find evidence of significant improvement on tasks when users were provided with any of the saliency maps. These findings suggest caution regarding the usefulness and potential for misunderstanding in saliency-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-10T23:13:23Z)
• Digital Socrates: Evaluating LLMs through Explanation Critiques [37.25959112212333]
  Digital Socrates is an open-source, automatic critique model for model explanations. We show how Digital Socrates is useful for revealing insights about student models by examining their reasoning chains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T06:51:46Z)
• Empowering Private Tutoring by Chaining Large Language Models [87.76985829144834]
  This work explores the development of a full-fledged intelligent tutoring system powered by state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) The system is into three inter-connected core processes-interaction, reflection, and reaction. Each process is implemented by chaining LLM-powered tools along with dynamically updated memory modules.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-15T02:42:03Z)
• Distilling ChatGPT for Explainable Automated Student Answer Assessment [19.604476650824516]
  We introduce a novel framework that explores using ChatGPT, a cutting-edge large language model, for the concurrent tasks of student answer scoring and rationale generation. Our experiments show that the proposed method improves the overall QWK score by 11% compared to ChatGPT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T12:11:39Z)
• ROSCOE: A Suite of Metrics for Scoring Step-by-Step Reasoning [63.77667876176978]
  Large language models show improved downstream task interpretability when prompted to generate step-by-step reasoning to justify their final answers. These reasoning steps greatly improve model interpretability and verification, but objectively studying their correctness is difficult. We present ROS, a suite of interpretable, unsupervised automatic scores that improve and extend previous text generation evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-15T15:52:39Z)
• Modelling Assessment Rubrics through Bayesian Networks: a Pragmatic Approach [40.06500618820166]
  This paper presents an approach to deriving a learner model directly from an assessment rubric. We illustrate how the approach can be applied to automatize the human assessment of an activity developed for testing computational thinking skills.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-07T10:09:12Z)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation of Dialog Systems: A Model-Free Off-Policy Evaluation Approach [84.02388020258141]
  We propose a new framework named ENIGMA for estimating human evaluation scores based on off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning. ENIGMA only requires a handful of pre-collected experience data, and therefore does not involve human interaction with the target policy during the evaluation. Our experiments show that ENIGMA significantly outperforms existing methods in terms of correlation with human evaluation scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-20T03:29:20Z)

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.