Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Evaluating Students' Open-ended Written Responses with LLMs: Using the RAG Framework for GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Claude-3, and Mistral-Large

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2405.05444 v1 pith:SW7WK7JC submitted 2024-05-08 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords llmsopen-endedanswersevaluatingframeworkresponsesstudentswritten
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Evaluating open-ended written examination responses from students is an essential yet time-intensive task for educators, requiring a high degree of effort, consistency, and precision. Recent developments in Large Language Models (LLMs) present a promising opportunity to balance the need for thorough evaluation with efficient use of educators' time. In our study, we explore the effectiveness of LLMs ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Claude-3, and Mistral-Large in assessing university students' open-ended answers to questions made about reference material they have studied. Each model was instructed to evaluate 54 answers repeatedly under two conditions: 10 times (10-shot) with a temperature setting of 0.0 and 10 times with a temperature of 0.5, expecting a total of 1,080 evaluations per model and 4,320 evaluations across all models. The RAG (Retrieval Augmented Generation) framework was used as the framework to make the LLMs to process the evaluation of the answers. As of spring 2024, our analysis revealed notable variations in consistency and the grading outcomes provided by studied LLMs. There is a need to comprehend strengths and weaknesses of LLMs in educational settings for evaluating open-ended written responses. Further comparative research is essential to determine the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of using LLMs for educational assessments.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Automated Assignment Grading with Large Language Models: Insights From a Bioinformatics Course

    cs.LG 2025-01 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    In a semester-long bioinformatics course, LLM graders with hand-tuned rubrics and examples graded written answers in 85 to 90 percent agreement with human TAs, but the accuracy was measured on the same set used to des...

Pith tools