WrAFT: a Modularized Automated Writing Evaluation System for Argumentative Essays

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.14524v1
• Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2026 03:23:31 GMT
• Title: WrAFT: a Modularized Automated Writing Evaluation System for Argumentative Essays
• Abstract summary: WrAFT is a writing assessment and feedback tool for argumentative essays.<n>System achieves state-of-the-art performance in scoring, with a quadratic weighted kappa (QWK) of 0.84 and a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.44 against official scores on a scale of 0-5.<n>An interactive user interface has been developed for the system and is publicly available and free to use.
• Score: 16.22466124017634
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: This study presents WrAFT, a Writing Assessment and Feedback Tool, that delivers both accurate and reliable scores and effective comprehensive feedback to argumentative essays. WrAFT adopts a modular design by dividing automated writing evaluation (AWE) tasks into scoring, surface-level feedback, and deep-level feedback. In building the system, various Large Language Models (LLMs) have been evaluated, including LLaMA-3.3-70B-Instruct, GPT-4o, and Claude 3.7, through both direct prompting and supervised fine-tuning approaches. A proprietary dataset of 480 TOEFL Independent Writing essays with official benchmark scores was utilized. Benchmark-based evaluation shows that WrAFT achieves state-of-the-art performance in scoring, with a quadratic weighted kappa (QWK) of 0.84 and a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.44 against official scores on a scale of 0-5. Human evaluation of system-generated feedback also reveals high approval ratings: 96.14 percent for surface-level feedback, 93.03 percent for deep-level macro feedback, and 94.69 percent for deep-level micro feedback. An interactive user interface has been developed for the system and is publicly available and free to use.

Related papers

• SurveyReview: A Reviewer-Aligned Benchmark for Survey Evaluators [50.129606229339146]
  SurveyReview is a reviewer-aligned, multi-dimensional benchmark and dataset for survey evaluation.<n>We structure authentic peer-review reports by converting free-form comments into four-dimensional scores.<n>We release standardized train/test splits and an evaluation protocol to measure alignment between automatic evaluators and human reviewers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-07T16:11:46Z)
• Intelligence Is Not the Bottleneck: Validating an LLM First-Pass Manuscript Score Against Peer-Review Outcomes [0.0]
  Large language model (LLM) systems are increasingly proposed to assist peer review.<n>Most evaluations judge the prose of machine-generated review text, not the validity of the numeric score a system assigns.<n>We validate AIPR, which reads a submitted manuscript and emits five 0-100 quality dimensions and a weighted overall score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-14T16:13:15Z)
• Automatic Essay Scoring and Feedback Generation in Basque Language Learning [4.218073067465283]
  This paper introduces the first publicly available dataset for Automatic Essay Scoring (AES) and feedback generation in Basque, targeting the CEFR C1 proficiency level.<n>The dataset comprises 3,200 essays from HABE, each annotated by expert evaluators with criterion specific scores covering correctness, richness, coherence, cohesion, and task alignment enriched with detailed feedback and error examples.<n>We fine-tune open-source models, including RoBERTa-EusCrawl and Latxa 8B/70B, for both scoring and explanation generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-09T15:28:35Z)
• Pairwise or Pointwise? Evaluating Feedback Protocols for Bias in LLM-Based Evaluation [57.380464382910375]
  We show that the choice of feedback protocol for evaluation can significantly affect evaluation reliability and induce systematic biases.<n>We find that generator models can flip preferences by embedding distractor features.<n>We offer recommendations for choosing feedback protocols based on dataset characteristics and evaluation objectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-20T19:05:59Z)
• 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)
• SummExecEdit: A Factual Consistency Benchmark in Summarization with Executable Edits [31.98028879922584]
  We introduce SummExecEdit, a novel pipeline and benchmark to assess models on their ability to both detect factual errors and provide accurate explanations.<n>The top-performing model, Claude3-Opus, achieves a joint detection and explanation score of only 0.49 in our benchmark.<n>We identify four primary types of explanation errors, with 45.4% of them involving a focus on completely unrelated parts of the summary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T23:26:44Z)
• A Large-Scale Study of Relevance Assessments with Large Language Models: An Initial Look [52.114284476700874]
  This paper reports on the results of a large-scale evaluation (the TREC 2024 RAG Track) where four different relevance assessment approaches were deployed. We find that automatically generated UMBRELA judgments can replace fully manual judgments to accurately capture run-level effectiveness. Surprisingly, we find that LLM assistance does not appear to increase correlation with fully manual assessments, suggesting that costs associated with human-in-the-loop processes do not bring obvious tangible benefits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-13T01:12:35Z)
• Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Models [66.12432440863816]
  We propose Prometheus, a fully open-source Large Language Model (LLM) that is on par with GPT-4's evaluation capabilities. Prometheus scores a Pearson correlation of 0.897 with human evaluators when evaluating with 45 customized score rubrics. Prometheus achieves the highest accuracy on two human preference benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-12T16:50:08Z)
• Split and Merge: Aligning Position Biases in LLM-based Evaluators [22.265542509143756]
  PORTIA is an alignment-based system designed to mimic human comparison strategies to calibrate position bias.<n>Our results show that PORTIA markedly enhances the consistency rates for all the models and comparison forms tested.<n>It rectifies around 80% of the position bias instances within the GPT-4 model, elevating its consistency rate up to 98%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T14:38:58Z)
• C-PMI: Conditional Pointwise Mutual Information for Turn-level Dialogue Evaluation [68.59356746305255]
  We propose a novel model-agnostic approach to measure the turn-level interaction between the system and the user. Our approach significantly improves the correlation with human judgment compared with existing evaluation systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-27T06:58:03Z)

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.