MAGIC: Multi-Agent Argumentation and Grammar Integrated Critiquer

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.13037v1
• Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 02:02:46 GMT
• Title: MAGIC: Multi-Agent Argumentation and Grammar Integrated Critiquer
• Abstract summary: Multi-Agent Argumentation and Grammar Integrated Critiquer (MAGIC)<n> framework uses multiple specialized agents to evaluate distinct writing aspects to both predict holistic scores and produce detailed, rubric-aligned feedback.
• Score: 4.262223700066747
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Automated Essay Scoring (AES) and Automatic Essay Feedback (AEF) systems aim to reduce the workload of human raters in educational assessment. However, most existing systems prioritize numeric scoring accuracy over the quality of feedback. This paper presents Multi-Agent Argumentation and Grammar Integrated Critiquer (MAGIC), a framework that uses multiple specialized agents to evaluate distinct writing aspects to both predict holistic scores and produce detailed, rubric-aligned feedback. To support evaluation, we curated a novel dataset of past GRE practice test essays with expert-evaluated scores and feedback. MAGIC outperforms baseline models in both essay scoring , as measured by Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK). We find that despite the improvement in QWK, there are opportunities for future work in aligning LLM-generated feedback to human preferences.

Related papers

• Evaluating AI Grading on Real-World Handwritten College Mathematics: A Large-Scale Study Toward a Benchmark [9.922581736690159]
  We present a large-scale empirical study of AI grading on real, handwritten calculus work from UC Irvine.<n>Using OCR-conditioned large language models with structured, rubric-guided prompting, our system produces scores and formative feedback for thousands of free-response quiz submissions.<n>In a setting with no single ground-truth label, we evaluate performance against official teaching-assistant grades, student surveys, and independent human review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-01T03:32:51Z)
• Author-in-the-Loop Response Generation and Evaluation: Integrating Author Expertise and Intent in Responses to Peer Review [53.99984738447279]
  Recent work frames this task as automatic text generation, underusing author expertise and intent.<n>We introduce REspGen, a generation framework that integrates explicit author input, multi-attribute control, and evaluation-guided refinement.<n>To support this formulation, we construct Re$3$Align, the first large-scale dataset of aligned review-response--revision triplets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T14:07:10Z)
• Exposía: Academic Writing Assessment of Exposés and Peer Feedback [56.428320613219306]
  We present Exposa, the first public dataset that connects writing and feedback assessment in higher education.<n>We use Exposa to benchmark state-of-the-art open-source large language models (LLMs) for two tasks: automated scoring of (1) the proposals and (2) the student reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-10T11:33:26Z)
• FeedEval: Pedagogically Aligned Evaluation of LLM-Generated Essay Feedback [6.88204255655161]
  We propose FeedEval, a framework for evaluating LLM-generated essay feedback along three pedagogically grounded dimensions: specificity, helpfulness, and validity.<n>Experiments on the ASAP++ benchmark show that FeedEval closely aligns with human expert judgments and that essay scoring models trained with FeedEval-filtered high-quality feedback achieve superior scoring performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T04:04:29Z)
• ARISE: Agentic Rubric-Guided Iterative Survey Engine for Automated Scholarly Paper Generation [7.437989615069771]
  ARISE is an agentic-guided Iterative Survey Engine for automated generation and continuous refinement of academic survey papers.<n>ARISE employs a modular architecture composed of specialized large language model agents, each mirroring distinct scholarly roles such as topic expansion, citation curation, literature summarization, manuscript drafting, and peer-review-based evaluation.<n>ARISE consistently surpasses baseline methods across metrics of comprehensiveness, accuracy, formatting, and overall scholarly rigor.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-21T14:14:35Z)
• Can Agents Judge Systematic Reviews Like Humans? Evaluating SLRs with LLM-based Multi-Agent System [1.3052252174353483]
  Systematic Literature Reviews ( SLRs) are foundational to evidence-based research but remain labor-intensive and prone to inconsistency across disciplines.<n>We present an LLM-based SLR evaluation copilot built on a Multi-Agent System (MAS) architecture to assist researchers in assessing the overall quality of the systematic literature reviews.<n>Unlike conventional single-agent methods, our design integrates a specialized agentic approach aligned with PRISMA guidelines to support more structured and interpretable evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-21T21:17:23Z)
• Expert Preference-based Evaluation of Automated Related Work Generation [54.29459509574242]
  We propose GREP, a multi-turn evaluation framework that integrates classical related work evaluation criteria with expert-specific preferences.<n>For better accessibility, we design two variants of GREP: a more precise variant with proprietary LLMs as evaluators, and a cheaper alternative with open-weight LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-11T13:08:07Z)
• RAG-Zeval: Towards Robust and Interpretable Evaluation on RAG Responses through End-to-End Rule-Guided Reasoning [64.46921169261852]
  RAG-Zeval is a novel end-to-end framework that formulates faithfulness and correctness evaluation as a rule-guided reasoning task.<n>Our approach trains evaluators with reinforcement learning, facilitating compact models to generate comprehensive and sound assessments.<n>Experiments demonstrate RAG-Zeval's superior performance, achieving the strongest correlation with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T14:55:33Z)
• On the Role of Feedback in Test-Time Scaling of Agentic AI Workflows [71.92083784393418]
  Agentic AI (systems that autonomously plan and act) are becoming widespread, yet their task success rate on complex tasks remains low.<n>Inference-time alignment relies on three components: sampling, evaluation, and feedback.<n>We introduce Iterative Agent Decoding (IAD), a procedure that repeatedly inserts feedback extracted from different forms of critiques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-02T17:40:47Z)
• Evaluating AI-Generated Essays with GRE Analytical Writing Assessment [15.993966092824335]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-22T21:30:58Z)
• Rationale Behind Essay Scores: Enhancing S-LLM's Multi-Trait Essay Scoring with Rationale Generated by LLMs [2.324913904215885]
  This paper introduces Rationale-based Multiple Trait Scoring (RMTS), a novel approach for multi-trait essay scoring.<n>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)<n>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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T06:35:17Z)
• Automated Genre-Aware Article Scoring and Feedback Using Large Language Models [8.10826723408637]
  This paper focuses on the development of an advanced intelligent article scoring system. It assesses the overall quality of written work and offers detailed feature-based scoring tailored to various article genres.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T04:13:51Z)
• PROXYQA: An Alternative Framework for Evaluating Long-Form Text Generation with Large Language Models [72.57329554067195]
  ProxyQA is an innovative framework dedicated to assessing longtext generation. It comprises in-depth human-curated meta-questions spanning various domains, each accompanied by specific proxy-questions with pre-annotated answers. It assesses the generated content's quality through the evaluator's accuracy in addressing the proxy-questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T18:12:25Z)
• Improving Machine Translation with Human Feedback: An Exploration of Quality Estimation as a Reward Model [75.66013048128302]
  In this work, we investigate the potential of employing the QE model as the reward model to predict human preferences for feedback training. We first identify the overoptimization problem during QE-based feedback training, manifested as an increase in reward while translation quality declines. To address the problem, we adopt a simple yet effective method that uses rules to detect the incorrect translations and assigns a penalty term to the reward scores of them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-23T16:07:43Z)
• SQUARE: Automatic Question Answering Evaluation using Multiple Positive and Negative References [73.67707138779245]
  We propose a new evaluation metric: SQuArE (Sentence-level QUestion AnsweRing Evaluation) We evaluate SQuArE on both sentence-level extractive (Answer Selection) and generative (GenQA) QA systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-21T16:51:30Z)
• Towards a Unified Multi-Dimensional Evaluator for Text Generation [101.47008809623202]
  We propose a unified multi-dimensional evaluator UniEval for Natural Language Generation (NLG) We re-frame NLG evaluation as a Boolean Question Answering (QA) task, and by guiding the model with different questions, we can use one evaluator to evaluate from multiple dimensions. Experiments on three typical NLG tasks show that UniEval correlates substantially better with human judgments than existing metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-13T17:17:03Z)
• An Interpretable Deep Learning System for Automatically Scoring Request for Proposals [3.244940746423378]
  We propose a novel Bi-LSTM based regression model, and provide deeper insight into phrases which latently impact scoring of responses. We also qualitatively asses the impact of important phrases using human evaluators. Finally, we introduce a novel problem statement that can be used to further improve the state of the art in NLP based automatic scoring systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-05T20:21:35Z)
• Evaluation Toolkit For Robustness Testing Of Automatic Essay Scoring Systems [64.4896118325552]
  We evaluate the current state-of-the-art AES models using a model adversarial evaluation scheme and associated metrics. We find that AES models are highly overstable. Even heavy modifications(as much as 25%) with content unrelated to the topic of the questions do not decrease the score produced by the models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-14T03:49:43Z)

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.