Analysis of instruction-based LLMs' capabilities to score and judge text-input problems in an academic setting

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.20982v1
• Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 10:26:23 GMT
• Title: Analysis of instruction-based LLMs' capabilities to score and judge text-input problems in an academic setting
• Authors: Valeria Ramirez-Garcia, David de-Fitero-Dominguez, Antonio Garcia-Cabot, Eva Garcia-Lopez,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) can act as evaluators, a role studied by methods like LLM-as-a-Judge and fine-tuned judging LLMs.<n>We propose five evaluation systems that have been tested on a custom dataset of 110 answers about computer science from higher education students with three models: JudgeLM, Llama-3.1-8B and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B.<n>With the lowest median absolute deviation (0.945) and the lowest root mean square deviation (1.214) when compared to human evaluation, Reference Aided Evaluation offers fair scoring as well as insightful and complete evaluations
• Score: 0.7699714865575188
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can act as evaluators, a role studied by methods like LLM-as-a-Judge and fine-tuned judging LLMs. In the field of education, LLMs have been studied as assistant tools for students and teachers. Our research investigates LLM-driven automatic evaluation systems for academic Text-Input Problems using rubrics. We propose five evaluation systems that have been tested on a custom dataset of 110 answers about computer science from higher education students with three models: JudgeLM, Llama-3.1-8B and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-8B. The evaluation systems include: The JudgeLM evaluation, which uses the model's single answer prompt to obtain a score; Reference Aided Evaluation, which uses a correct answer as a guide aside from the original context of the question; No Reference Evaluation, which ommits the reference answer; Additive Evaluation, which uses atomic criteria; and Adaptive Evaluation, which is an evaluation done with generated criteria fitted to each question. All evaluation methods have been compared with the results of a human evaluator. Results show that the best method to automatically evaluate and score Text-Input Problems using LLMs is Reference Aided Evaluation. With the lowest median absolute deviation (0.945) and the lowest root mean square deviation (1.214) when compared to human evaluation, Reference Aided Evaluation offers fair scoring as well as insightful and complete evaluations. Other methods such as Additive and Adaptive Evaluation fail to provide good results in concise answers, No Reference Evaluation lacks information needed to correctly assess questions and JudgeLM Evaluations have not provided good results due to the model's limitations. As a result, we conclude that Artificial Intelligence-driven automatic evaluation systems, aided with proper methodologies, show potential to work as complementary tools to other academic resources.

Related papers

• SedarEval: Automated Evaluation using Self-Adaptive Rubrics [4.97150240417381]
  We propose a new evaluation paradigm based on self-adaptive rubrics.<n>SedarEval consists of 1,000 meticulously crafted questions, each with its own self-adaptive rubric.<n>We train a specialized evaluator language model (evaluator LM) to supplant human graders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-26T16:45:09Z)
• HREF: Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following in Language Models [61.273153125847166]
  We develop a new evaluation benchmark, Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following (HREF)<n>In addition to providing reliable evaluation, HREF emphasizes individual task performance and is free from contamination.<n>We study the impact of key design choices in HREF, including the size of the evaluation set, the judge model, the baseline model, and the prompt template.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T03:26:47Z)
• An Automatic and Cost-Efficient Peer-Review Framework for Language Generation Evaluation [29.81362106367831]
  Existing evaluation methods often suffer from high costs, limited test formats, the need of human references, and systematic evaluation biases. In contrast to previous studies that rely on human annotations, Auto-PRE selects evaluators automatically based on their inherent traits. Experimental results indicate our Auto-PRE achieves state-of-the-art performance at a lower cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T06:06:06Z)
• Evaluating the Evaluator: Measuring LLMs' Adherence to Task Evaluation Instructions [18.93335792080899]
  We investigate how much influence prompting the LLMs-as-a-judge has on the alignment of AI judgements to human judgements. We aggregate a taxonomy of quality criteria commonly used across state-of-the-art evaluations with LLMs and provide this as a rigorous benchmark of models as judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T14:49:35Z)
• Large Language Model as an Assignment Evaluator: Insights, Feedback, and Challenges in a 1000+ Student Course [49.296957552006226]
  Using large language models (LLMs) for automatic evaluation has become an important evaluation method in NLP research. This report shares how we use GPT-4 as an automatic assignment evaluator in a university course with 1,028 students.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-07T00:17:24Z)
• Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators [48.54465599914978]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities as automatic evaluators in assessing the quality of generated natural language.<n>LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments.<n>We introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PAIRS), an uncertainty-guided search-based rank aggregation method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons locally and efficiently ranks candidate texts globally.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T17:11:28Z)
• Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks [65.69651759036535]
  We analyze whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as reliable alternatives to humans.<n>This paper explores both conventional tasks (e.g., story generation) and alignment tasks (e.g., math reasoning)<n>We find that LLM evaluators can generate unnecessary criteria or omit crucial criteria, resulting in a slight deviation from the experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)
• Style Over Substance: Evaluation Biases for Large Language Models [17.13064447978519]
  This study investigates the behavior of crowd-sourced and expert annotators, as well as large language models (LLMs) Our findings reveal a concerning bias in the evaluation process, as answers with factual errors are rated more favorably than answers that are too short or contained grammatical errors. We propose independently evaluating machine-generated text across multiple dimensions, rather than merging all the evaluation aspects into a single score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T14:42:01Z)
• Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations? [80.81532239566992]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided. We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T07:28:50Z)

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.