5,896 research outputs found

    Exploring Automated Essay Scoring for Nonnative English Speakers

    Full text link
    Automated Essay Scoring (AES) has been quite popular and is being widely used. However, lack of appropriate methodology for rating nonnative English speakers' essays has meant a lopsided advancement in this field. In this paper, we report initial results of our experiments with nonnative AES that learns from manual evaluation of nonnative essays. For this purpose, we conducted an exercise in which essays written by nonnative English speakers in test environment were rated both manually and by the automated system designed for the experiment. In the process, we experimented with a few features to learn about nuances linked to nonnative evaluation. The proposed methodology of automated essay evaluation has yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.750 with the manual evaluation.Comment: Accepted for publication at EUROPHRAS 201

    When Automated Assessment Meets Automated Content Generation: Examining Text Quality in the Era of GPTs

    Full text link
    The use of machine learning (ML) models to assess and score textual data has become increasingly pervasive in an array of contexts including natural language processing, information retrieval, search and recommendation, and credibility assessment of online content. A significant disruption at the intersection of ML and text are text-generating large-language models such as generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs). We empirically assess the differences in how ML-based scoring models trained on human content assess the quality of content generated by humans versus GPTs. To do so, we propose an analysis framework that encompasses essay scoring ML-models, human and ML-generated essays, and a statistical model that parsimoniously considers the impact of type of respondent, prompt genre, and the ML model used for assessment model. A rich testbed is utilized that encompasses 18,460 human-generated and GPT-based essays. Results of our benchmark analysis reveal that transformer pretrained language models (PLMs) more accurately score human essay quality as compared to CNN/RNN and feature-based ML methods. Interestingly, we find that the transformer PLMs tend to score GPT-generated text 10-15\% higher on average, relative to human-authored documents. Conversely, traditional deep learning and feature-based ML models score human text considerably higher. Further analysis reveals that although the transformer PLMs are exclusively fine-tuned on human text, they more prominently attend to certain tokens appearing only in GPT-generated text, possibly due to familiarity/overlap in pre-training. Our framework and results have implications for text classification settings where automated scoring of text is likely to be disrupted by generative AI.Comment: Data available at: https://github.com/nd-hal/automated-ML-scoring-versus-generatio
    • …
    corecore