CodEv: An Automated Grading Framework Leveraging Large Language Models for Consistent and Constructive Feedback

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.10421v1
• Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 03:09:46 GMT
• Title: CodEv: An Automated Grading Framework Leveraging Large Language Models for Consistent and Constructive Feedback
• Authors: En-Qi Tseng, Pei-Cing Huang, Chan Hsu, Peng-Yi Wu, Chan-Tung Ku, Yihuang Kang,
• Abstract summary: This study presents an automated grading framework, CodEv, which leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to provide consistent and constructive feedback. Our framework also integrates LLM ensembles to improve the accuracy and consistency of scores, along with agreement tests to deliver reliable feedback and code review comments.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• Abstract: Grading programming assignments is crucial for guiding students to improve their programming skills and coding styles. This study presents an automated grading framework, CodEv, which leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to provide consistent and constructive feedback. We incorporate Chain of Thought (CoT) prompting techniques to enhance the reasoning capabilities of LLMs and ensure that the grading is aligned with human evaluation. Our framework also integrates LLM ensembles to improve the accuracy and consistency of scores, along with agreement tests to deliver reliable feedback and code review comments. The results demonstrate that the framework can yield grading results comparable to human evaluators, by using smaller LLMs. Evaluation and consistency tests of the LLMs further validate our approach, confirming the reliability of the generated scores and feedback.

Related papers

• The ELEVATE-AI LLMs Framework: An Evaluation Framework for Use of Large Language Models in HEOR: an ISPOR Working Group Report [12.204470166456561]
  This article introduces the ELEVATE AI LLMs framework and checklist. The framework comprises ten evaluation domains, including model characteristics, accuracy, comprehensiveness, and fairness. Validation of the framework and checklist on studies of systematic literature reviews and health economic modeling highlighted their ability to identify strengths and gaps in reporting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T14:09:10Z)
• Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verification [52.095460362197336]
  Large language models (LLMs) struggle with consistent and accurate reasoning. LLMs are trained primarily on correct solutions, reducing their ability to detect and learn from errors. We propose a novel collaborative method integrating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT) solutions for verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T05:21:48Z)
• CIBench: Evaluating Your LLMs with a Code Interpreter Plugin [68.95137938214862]
  We propose an interactive evaluation framework, named CIBench, to comprehensively assess LLMs' ability to utilize code interpreters for data science tasks. The evaluation dataset is constructed using an LLM-human cooperative approach and simulates an authentic workflow by leveraging consecutive and interactive IPython sessions. We conduct extensive experiments to analyze the ability of 24 LLMs on CIBench and provide valuable insights for future LLMs in code interpreter utilization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-15T07:43:55Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [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)
• AI-powered Code Review with LLMs: Early Results [10.37036924997437]
  We present a novel approach to improving software quality and efficiency through a Large Language Model (LLM)-based model. Our proposed LLM-based AI agent model is trained on large code repositories. It aims to detect code smells, identify potential bugs, provide suggestions for improvement, and optimize the code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-29T08:27:50Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following [54.49567482594617]
  We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. We discover that different evaluators exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T16:38:11Z)
• Measuring and Improving Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in Vision-Language Models [61.28463542324576]
  Vision-language models (VLMs) have recently demonstrated strong efficacy as visual assistants that can generate human-like outputs. We evaluate existing state-of-the-art VLMs and find that even the best-performing model is unable to demonstrate strong visual reasoning capabilities and consistency. We propose a two-stage training framework aimed at improving both the reasoning performance and consistency of VLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-08T17:49:44Z)
• Through the Lens of Core Competency: Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models [27.271533306818732]
  Large language model (LLM) has excellent performance and wide practical uses. Existing evaluation tasks are difficult to keep up with the wide range of applications in real-world scenarios. We summarize 4 core competencies of LLM, including reasoning, knowledge, reliability, and safety. Under this competency architecture, similar tasks are combined to reflect corresponding ability, while new tasks can also be easily added into the system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-15T17:40:34Z)

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.