FeedEval: Pedagogically Aligned Evaluation of LLM-Generated Essay Feedback

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.04574v1
• Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2026 04:04:29 GMT
• Title: FeedEval: Pedagogically Aligned Evaluation of LLM-Generated Essay Feedback
• Authors: Seongyeub Chu, Jongwoo Kim, Munyong Yi,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 6.88204255655161
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Going beyond the prediction of numerical scores, recent research in automated essay scoring has increasingly emphasized the generation of high-quality feedback that provides justification and actionable guidance. To mitigate the high cost of expert annotation, prior work has commonly relied on LLM-generated feedback to train essay assessment models. However, such feedback is often incorporated without explicit quality validation, resulting in the propagation of noise in downstream applications. To address this limitation, we propose FeedEval, an LLM-based framework for evaluating LLM-generated essay feedback along three pedagogically grounded dimensions: specificity, helpfulness, and validity. FeedEval employs dimension-specialized LLM evaluators trained on datasets curated in this study to assess multiple feedback candidates and select high-quality feedback for downstream use. 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. Furthermore, revision experiments using small LLMs show that the high-quality feedback identified by FeedEval leads to more effective essay revisions. We will release our code and curated datasets upon accepted.

Related papers

• On Evaluating LLM Alignment by Evaluating LLMs as Judges [68.15541137648721]
  evaluating large language models' (LLMs) alignment requires them to be helpful, honest, safe, and to precisely follow human instructions.<n>We examine the relationship between LLMs' generation and evaluation capabilities in aligning with human preferences.<n>We propose a benchmark that assesses alignment without directly evaluating model outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-25T18:33:24Z)
• Beyond "Not Novel Enough": Enriching Scholarly Critique with LLM-Assisted Feedback [81.0031690510116]
  We present a structured approach for automated novelty evaluation that models expert reviewer behavior through three stages.<n>Our method is informed by a large scale analysis of human written novelty reviews.<n> Evaluated on 182 ICLR 2025 submissions, the approach achieves 86.5% alignment with human reasoning and 75.3% agreement on novelty conclusions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-14T16:18:37Z)
• Dean of LLM Tutors: Exploring Comprehensive and Automated Evaluation of LLM-generated Educational Feedback via LLM Feedback Evaluators [5.838566576554449]
  We propose a method that uses LLM feedback evaluators to automatically and comprehensively evaluate feedback generated by LLM tutors.<n>This allows low-quality feedback to be rejected and enables LLM tutors to improve the feedback they generated based on the evaluation results.<n>Our findings show that o3-pro demonstrated the best performance in zero-shot labelling of feedback while o4-mini demonstrated the best performance in few-shot labelling of feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-08T02:36:23Z)
• Towards Understanding the Robustness of LLM-based Evaluations under Perturbations [9.944512689015998]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can serve as automatic evaluators for non-standardized metrics in summarization and dialog-based tasks.<n>We conduct experiments across multiple prompting strategies to examine how LLMs fare as quality evaluators when compared with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T13:31:58Z)
• RevisEval: Improving LLM-as-a-Judge via Response-Adapted References [95.29800580588592]
  RevisEval is a novel text generation evaluation paradigm via the response-adapted references.<n>RevisEval is driven by the key observation that an ideal reference should maintain the necessary relevance to the response to be evaluated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T16:50:47Z)
• AI-Driven Review Systems: Evaluating LLMs in Scalable and Bias-Aware Academic Reviews [18.50142644126276]
  We evaluate the alignment of automatic paper reviews with human reviews using an arena of human preferences by pairwise comparisons. We fine-tune an LLM to predict human preferences, predicting which reviews humans will prefer in a head-to-head battle between LLMs. We make the reviews of publicly available arXiv and open-access Nature journal papers available online, along with a free service which helps authors review and revise their research papers and improve their quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-19T19:10:38Z)
• Large Language Models as Evaluators for Recommendation Explanations [23.938202791437337]
  We investigate whether LLMs can serve as evaluators of recommendation explanations. We design and apply a 3-level meta evaluation strategy to measure the correlation between evaluator labels and the ground truth provided by users. Our study verifies that utilizing LLMs as evaluators can be an accurate, reproducible and cost-effective solution for evaluating recommendation explanation texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T13:23:23Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.<n>The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.<n>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)
• RepEval: Effective Text Evaluation with LLM Representation [55.26340302485898]
  RepEval is a metric that leverages the projection of Large Language Models (LLMs) representations for evaluation. Our work underscores the richness of information regarding text quality embedded within LLM representations, offering insights for the development of new metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-30T13:50:55Z)
• 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)
• PRE: A Peer Review Based Large Language Model Evaluator [14.585292530642603]
  Existing paradigms rely on either human annotators or model-based evaluators to evaluate the performance of LLMs. We propose a novel framework that can automatically evaluate LLMs through a peer-review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-28T12:33:14Z)

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.