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
• Authors: Joaquin Jordan, Xavier Yin, Melissa Fabros, Gireeja Ranade, Narges Norouzi,
• 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

• 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.