Evaluating AI-Generated Essays with GRE Analytical Writing Assessment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.17439v3
• Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2024 04:57:08 GMT
• Title: Evaluating AI-Generated Essays with GRE Analytical Writing Assessment
• Authors: Yang Zhong, Jiangang Hao, Michael Fauss, Chen Li, Yuan Wang,
• Abstract summary: This study examines essays generated by ten leading LLMs for the analytical writing assessment of the Graduate Record Exam (GRE) We assessed these essays using both human raters and the e-rater automated scoring engine as used in the GRE scoring pipeline. The top-performing Gemini and GPT-4o received an average score of 4.78 and 4.67, respectively.
• Score: 15.993966092824335
• License:
• Abstract: The recent revolutionary advance in generative AI enables the generation of realistic and coherent texts by large language models (LLMs). Despite many existing evaluation metrics on the quality of the generated texts, there is still a lack of rigorous assessment of how well LLMs perform in complex and demanding writing assessments. This study examines essays generated by ten leading LLMs for the analytical writing assessment of the Graduate Record Exam (GRE). We assessed these essays using both human raters and the e-rater automated scoring engine as used in the GRE scoring pipeline. Notably, the top-performing Gemini and GPT-4o received an average score of 4.78 and 4.67, respectively, falling between "generally thoughtful, well-developed analysis of the issue and conveys meaning clearly" and "presents a competent analysis of the issue and conveys meaning with acceptable clarity" according to the GRE scoring guideline. We also evaluated the detection accuracy of these essays, with detectors trained on essays generated by the same and different LLMs.

Related papers

• 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)
• Decompose and Aggregate: A Step-by-Step Interpretable Evaluation Framework [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators. The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question. We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• From Model-centered to Human-Centered: Revision Distance as a Metric for Text Evaluation in LLMs-based Applications [26.857056013032263]
  evaluating large language models (LLMs) is fundamental, particularly in the context of practical applications. Our study shifts the focus from model-centered to human-centered evaluation in the context of AI-powered writing assistance applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-10T15:46:08Z)
• Large Language Models Are State-of-the-Art Evaluator for Grammatical Error Correction [14.822205658480813]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been reported to outperform existing automatic evaluation metrics in some tasks. This study investigates the performance of LLMs in grammatical error correction (GEC) evaluation by employing prompts inspired by previous research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-26T09:43:15Z)
• DCR-Consistency: Divide-Conquer-Reasoning for Consistency Evaluation and Improvement of Large Language Models [4.953092503184905]
  This work proposes DCR, an automated framework for evaluating and improving the consistency of Large Language Models (LLMs) generated texts. We introduce an automatic metric converter (AMC) that translates the output from DCE into an interpretable numeric score. Our approach also substantially reduces nearly 90% of output inconsistencies, showing promise for effective hallucination mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-04T08:34:16Z)
• CritiqueLLM: Towards an Informative Critique Generation Model for Evaluation of Large Language Model Generation [87.44350003888646]
  Eval-Instruct can acquire pointwise grading critiques with pseudo references and revise these critiques via multi-path prompting. CritiqueLLM is empirically shown to outperform ChatGPT and all the open-source baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-30T16:52:42Z)
• LLMs as Narcissistic Evaluators: When Ego Inflates Evaluation Scores [23.568883428947494]
  We investigate whether prominent LM-based evaluation metrics demonstrate a favorable bias toward their respective underlying LMs in the context of summarization tasks. Our findings unveil a latent bias, particularly pronounced when such evaluation metrics are used in a reference-free manner without leveraging gold summaries. These results underscore that assessments provided by generative evaluation models can be influenced by factors beyond the inherent text quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T10:43:26Z)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)
• Evaluating the Performance of Large Language Models on GAOKAO Benchmark [53.663757126289795]
  This paper introduces GAOKAO-Bench, an intuitive benchmark that employs questions from the Chinese GAOKAO examination as test samples. With human evaluation, we obtain the converted total score of LLMs, including GPT-4, ChatGPT and ERNIE-Bot. We also use LLMs to grade the subjective questions, and find that model scores achieve a moderate level of consistency with human scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-21T14:39:28Z)
• G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment [64.01972723692587]
  We present G-Eval, a framework of using large language models with chain-of-thoughts (CoT) and a form-filling paradigm to assess the quality of NLG outputs. We show that G-Eval with GPT-4 as the backbone model achieves a Spearman correlation of 0.514 with human on summarization task, outperforming all previous methods by a large margin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-29T12:46:54Z)
• 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.