Rubric Is All You Need: Enhancing LLM-based Code Evaluation With Question-Specific Rubrics

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23989v1
• Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 11:59:43 GMT
• Title: Rubric Is All You Need: Enhancing LLM-based Code Evaluation With Question-Specific Rubrics
• Authors: Aditya Pathak, Rachit Gandhi, Vaibhav Uttam, Devansh, Yashwanth Nakka, Aaryan Raj Jindal, Pratyush Ghosh, Arnav Ramamoorthy, Shreyash Verma, Aditya Mittal, Aashna Ased, Chirag Khatri, Jagat Sesh Challa, Dhruv Kumar,
• Abstract summary: We focus on LLM-based code evaluation and attempt to fill in the existing gaps.<n>We propose multi-agentic novel approaches using question-specific rubrics tailored to the problem statement.<n>Our comprehensive analysis demonstrates that question-specific rubrics significantly enhance logical assessment of code in educational settings.
• Score: 1.3707925738322797
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Since the disruption in LLM technology brought about by the release of GPT-3 and ChatGPT, LLMs have shown remarkable promise in programming-related tasks. While code generation remains a popular field of research, code evaluation using LLMs remains a problem with no conclusive solution. In this paper, we focus on LLM-based code evaluation and attempt to fill in the existing gaps. We propose multi-agentic novel approaches using question-specific rubrics tailored to the problem statement, arguing that these perform better for logical assessment than the existing approaches that use question-agnostic rubrics. To address the lack of suitable evaluation datasets, we introduce two datasets: a Data Structures and Algorithms dataset containing 150 student submissions from a popular Data Structures and Algorithms practice website, and an Object Oriented Programming dataset comprising 80 student submissions from undergraduate computer science courses. In addition to using standard metrics (Spearman Correlation, Cohen's Kappa), we additionally propose a new metric called as Leniency, which quantifies evaluation strictness relative to expert assessment. Our comprehensive analysis demonstrates that question-specific rubrics significantly enhance logical assessment of code in educational settings, providing better feedback aligned with instructional goals beyond mere syntactic correctness.

Related papers

• Can LLMs Generate Tabular Summaries of Science Papers? Rethinking the Evaluation Protocol [83.90769864167301]
  Literature review tables are essential for summarizing and comparing collections of scientific papers. We explore the task of generating tables that best fulfill a user's informational needs given a collection of scientific papers. Our contributions focus on three key challenges encountered in real-world use: (i) User prompts are often under-specified; (ii) Retrieved candidate papers frequently contain irrelevant content; and (iii) Task evaluation should move beyond shallow text similarity techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-14T14:52:28Z)
• Leveraging Online Olympiad-Level Math Problems for LLMs Training and Contamination-Resistant Evaluation [55.21013307734612]
  AoPS-Instruct is a dataset of more than 600,000 high-quality QA pairs.<n>LiveAoPSBench is an evolving evaluation set with timestamps, derived from the latest forum data.<n>Our work presents a scalable approach to creating and maintaining large-scale, high-quality datasets for advanced math reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T06:39:38Z)
• Human-Like Code Quality Evaluation through LLM-based Recursive Semantic Comprehension [39.277408536940825]
  Code quality evaluation involves scoring generated code quality based on a reference code for a specific problem statement.<n>Currently, there are two main forms of evaluating code quality: match-based evaluation and execution-based evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-30T01:49:25Z)
• AIME: AI System Optimization via Multiple LLM Evaluators [79.03422337674664]
  AIME is an evaluation protocol that utilizes multiple LLMs that each independently generate an evaluation on separate criteria and then combine them via concatenation. We show AIME outperforming baseline methods in code generation tasks, with up to $62%$ higher error detection rate and up to $16%$ higher success rate than a single LLM evaluation protocol on LeetCodeHard and HumanEval datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T04:03:24Z)
• SIaM: Self-Improving Code-Assisted Mathematical Reasoning of Large Language Models [54.78329741186446]
  We propose a novel paradigm that uses a code-based critic model to guide steps including question-code data construction, quality control, and complementary evaluation. Experiments across both in-domain and out-of-domain benchmarks in English and Chinese demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-28T06:33:03Z)
• Source Code Summarization in the Era of Large Language Models [23.715005053430957]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led to a great boost in the performance of code-related tasks. In this paper, we undertake a systematic and comprehensive study on code summarization in the era of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-09T05:48:42Z)
• What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study [80.18342600996601]
  Large language models (LLMs) produce code that is shorter yet more complicated as compared to canonical solutions. We develop a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes that includes three categories and 12 sub-categories, and analyze the root cause for common bug types. We propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code based on bug types and compiler feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:27:17Z)
• HumanEvalComm: Benchmarking the Communication Competence of Code Generation for LLMs and LLM Agent [2.8391355909797644]
  Large language models (LLMs) have significantly improved their ability to perform tasks in the field of code generation.<n>There is still a gap between LLMs being capable coders and being top-tier software engineers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T22:06:18Z)
• Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human Preferences [11.23629471911503]
  EvalGen provides automated assistance to users in generating evaluation criteria and implementing assertions. A qualitative study finds overall support for EvalGen but underscores the subjectivity and iterative process of alignment. We identify a phenomenon we dub emphcriteria drift: users need criteria to grade outputs, but grading outputs helps users define criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-18T15:45:27Z)
• Evaluation of LLMs on Syntax-Aware Code Fill-in-the-Middle Tasks [12.629516072317331]
  Syntax-Aware Fill-In-the-Middle (SAFIM) is a new benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) on the code Fill-in-the-Middle (FIM) task. This benchmark focuses on syntax-aware completions of program structures such as code blocks and conditional expressions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T05:05:56Z)
• Evaluating LLMs' Mathematical and Coding Competency through Ontology-guided Interventions [47.83142414018448]
  We focus on two popular reasoning tasks: arithmetic reasoning and code generation. We introduce (i) a general ontology of perturbations for math and coding questions, (ii) a semi-automatic method to apply these perturbations, and (iii) two datasets. We show a significant performance drop across all the models against perturbed questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-17T18:13:07Z)
• SatLM: Satisfiability-Aided Language Models Using Declarative Prompting [68.40726892904286]
  We propose a new satisfiability-aided language modeling (SatLM) approach for improving the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) We use an LLM to generate a declarative task specification rather than an imperative program and leverage an off-the-shelf automated theorem prover to derive the final answer. We evaluate SATLM on 8 different datasets and show that it consistently outperforms program-aided LMs in the imperative paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-16T17:55:51Z)

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.