Rationale Behind Essay Scores: Enhancing S-LLM's Multi-Trait Essay Scoring with Rationale Generated by LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14202v1
• Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 06:35:17 GMT
• Title: Rationale Behind Essay Scores: Enhancing S-LLM's Multi-Trait Essay Scoring with Rationale Generated by LLMs
• Authors: SeongYeub Chu, JongWoo Kim, Bryan Wong, MunYong Yi,
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces Rationale-based Multiple Trait Scoring (RMTS), a novel approach for multi-trait essay scoring. RMTS integrates prompt-engineering-based large language models (LLMs) with a fine-tuning-based essay scoring model using a smaller large language model (S-LLM) Experiments on benchmark datasets, including ASAP, ASAP++, and Feedback Prize, show that RMTS significantly outperforms state-of-the-art models and vanilla S-LLMs in trait-specific scoring.
• Score: 2.324913904215885
• License:
• Abstract: Existing automated essay scoring (AES) has solely relied on essay text without using explanatory rationales for the scores, thereby forgoing an opportunity to capture the specific aspects evaluated by rubric indicators in a fine-grained manner. This paper introduces Rationale-based Multiple Trait Scoring (RMTS), a novel approach for multi-trait essay scoring that integrates prompt-engineering-based large language models (LLMs) with a fine-tuning-based essay scoring model using a smaller large language model (S-LLM). RMTS uses an LLM-based trait-wise rationale generation system where a separate LLM agent generates trait-specific rationales based on rubric guidelines, which the scoring model uses to accurately predict multi-trait scores. Extensive experiments on benchmark datasets, including ASAP, ASAP++, and Feedback Prize, show that RMTS significantly outperforms state-of-the-art models and vanilla S-LLMs in trait-specific scoring. By assisting quantitative assessment with fine-grained qualitative rationales, RMTS enhances the trait-wise reliability, providing partial explanations about essays.

Related papers

• LLaVA-Critic: Learning to Evaluate Multimodal Models [110.06665155812162]
  We introduce LLaVA-Critic, the first open-source large multimodal model (LMM) designed as a generalist evaluator. LLaVA-Critic is trained using a high-quality critic instruction-following dataset that incorporates diverse evaluation criteria and scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:36:33Z)
• Unleashing the Power of Large Language Models in Zero-shot Relation Extraction via Self-Prompting [21.04933334040135]
  We introduce the Self-Prompting framework, a novel method designed to fully harness the embedded RE knowledge within Large Language Models. Our framework employs a three-stage diversity approach to prompt LLMs, generating multiple synthetic samples that encapsulate specific relations from scratch. Experimental evaluations on benchmark datasets show our approach outperforms existing LLM-based zero-shot RE methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T01:12:54Z)
• RDBE: Reasoning Distillation-Based Evaluation Enhances Automatic Essay Scoring [0.0]
  Reasoning Distillation-Based Evaluation (RDBE) integrates interpretability to elucidate the rationale behind model scores. Our experimental results demonstrate the efficacy of RDBE across all scoring rubrics considered in the dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T05:49:01Z)
• A Comparative Study of Quality Evaluation Methods for Text Summarization [0.5512295869673147]
  This paper proposes a novel method based on large language models (LLMs) for evaluating text summarization. Our results show that LLMs evaluation aligns closely with human evaluation, while widely-used automatic metrics such as ROUGE-2, BERTScore, and SummaC do not and also lack consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-30T16:12:37Z)
• 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)
• Unleashing Large Language Models' Proficiency in Zero-shot Essay Scoring [12.66710643199155]
  Multi Traits' framework elicits ample potential for large language models. We derive the overall score via trait averaging and min-max scaling. With the help of MTS, the small-sized Llama2-13b-chat substantially outperforms ChatGPT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-07T12:25:35Z)
• Information-Theoretic Distillation for Reference-less Summarization [67.51150817011617]
  We present a novel framework to distill a powerful summarizer based on the information-theoretic objective for summarization. We start off from Pythia-2.8B as the teacher model, which is not yet capable of summarization. We arrive at a compact but powerful summarizer with only 568M parameters that performs competitively against ChatGPT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-20T17:42:08Z)
• BLESS: Benchmarking Large Language Models on Sentence Simplification [55.461555829492866]
  We present BLESS, a performance benchmark of the most recent state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) on the task of text simplification (TS) We assess a total of 44 models, differing in size, architecture, pre-training methods, and accessibility, on three test sets from different domains (Wikipedia, news, and medical) under a few-shot setting. Our evaluation indicates that the best LLMs, despite not being trained on TS, perform comparably with state-of-the-art TS baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T12:18:17Z)
• Summarization is (Almost) Dead [49.360752383801305]
  We develop new datasets and conduct human evaluation experiments to evaluate the zero-shot generation capability of large language models (LLMs) Our findings indicate a clear preference among human evaluators for LLM-generated summaries over human-written summaries and summaries generated by fine-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-18T08:13:01Z)
• Large Language Models are Diverse Role-Players for Summarization Evaluation [82.31575622685902]
  A document summary's quality can be assessed by human annotators on various criteria, both objective ones like grammar and correctness, and subjective ones like informativeness, succinctness, and appeal. Most of the automatic evaluation methods like BLUE/ROUGE may be not able to adequately capture the above dimensions. We propose a new evaluation framework based on LLMs, which provides a comprehensive evaluation framework by comparing generated text and reference text from both objective and subjective aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-27T10:40:59Z)

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.