Japanese-English Sentence Translation Exercises Dataset for Automatic Grading

This paper proposes the task of automatic assessment of Sentence Translation Exercises (STEs), that have been used in the early stage of L2 language learning. We formalize the task as grading student responses for each rubric criterion pre-specified by the educators. We then create a dataset for STE between Japanese and English including 21 questions, along with a total of 3, 498 student responses (167 on average). The answer responses were collected from students and crowd workers. Using this dataset, we demonstrate the performance of baselines including finetuned BERT and GPT models with few-shot in-context learning. Experimental results show that the baseline model with finetuned BERT was able to classify correct responses with approximately 90% in F1, but only less than 80% for incorrect responses. Furthermore, the GPT models with few-shot learning show poorer results than finetuned BERT, indicating that our newly proposed task presents a challenging issue, even for the stateof-the-art large language models.

Assessing Step-by-Step Reasoning against Lexical Negation: A Case Study on Syllogism

Large language models (LLMs) take advantage of step-by-step reasoning instructions, e.g., chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting. Building on this, their ability to perform CoT-style reasoning robustly is of interest from a probing perspective. In this study, we inspect the step-by-step reasoning ability of LLMs with a focus on negation, which is a core linguistic phenomenon that is difficult to process. In particular, we introduce several controlled settings (e.g., reasoning in case of fictional entities) to evaluate the logical reasoning abilities of the models. We observed that dozens of modern LLMs were not robust against lexical negation (e.g., plausible ->implausible) when performing CoT-style reasoning, and the results highlight unique limitations in each LLM family.

Balancing Cost and Quality: An Exploration of Human-in-the-loop Frameworks for Automated Short Answer Scoring

Short answer scoring (SAS) is the task of grading short text written by a learner. In recent years, deep-learning-based approaches have substantially improved the performance of SAS models, but how to guarantee high-quality predictions still remains a critical issue when applying such models to the education field. Towards guaranteeing high-quality predictions, we present the first study of exploring the use of human-in-the-loop framework for minimizing the grading cost while guaranteeing the grading quality by allowing a SAS model to share the grading task with a human grader. Specifically, by introducing a confidence estimation method for indicating the reliability of the model predictions, one can guarantee the scoring quality by utilizing only predictions with high reliability for the scoring results and casting predictions with low reliability to human graders. In our experiments, we investigate the feasibility of the proposed framework using multiple confidence estimation methods and multiple SAS datasets. We find that our human-in-the-loop framework allows automatic scoring models and human graders to achieve the target scoring quality.