Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Can GPT-4 do L2 analytic assessment?

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 2404.18557 v1 pith:R55FIF5T submitted 2024-04-29 cs.CL

Can GPT-4 do L2 analytic assessment?

classification cs.CL
keywords analyticscoringproficiencycomponentsgpt-4holistichumanlanguage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Automated essay scoring (AES) to evaluate second language (L2) proficiency has been a firmly established technology used in educational contexts for decades. Although holistic scoring has seen advancements in AES that match or even exceed human performance, analytic scoring still encounters issues as it inherits flaws and shortcomings from the human scoring process. The recent introduction of large language models presents new opportunities for automating the evaluation of specific aspects of L2 writing proficiency. In this paper, we perform a series of experiments using GPT-4 in a zero-shot fashion on a publicly available dataset annotated with holistic scores based on the Common European Framework of Reference and aim to extract detailed information about their underlying analytic components. We observe significant correlations between the automatically predicted analytic scores and multiple features associated with the individual proficiency components.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. LLM Performance on a Real, Double-Marked GCSE Benchmark

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Off-the-shelf LLMs match or exceed inter-examiner agreement on a new 32k-response double-marked GCSE dataset spanning five subjects and handwritten scripts.