Systematic Review of Approaches to Improve Peer Assessment at Scale

Peer Assessment is a task of analysis and commenting on student's writing by peers, is core of all educational components both in campus and in MOOC's. However, with the sheer scale of MOOC's & its inherent personalised open ended learning, automatic grading and tools assisting grading at scale is highly important. Previously we presented survey on tasks of post classification, knowledge tracing and ended with brief review on Peer Assessment (PA), with some initial problems. In this review we shall continue review on PA from perspective of improving the review process itself. As such rest of this review focus on three facets of PA namely Auto grading and Peer Assessment Tools (we shall look only on how peer reviews/auto-grading is carried), strategies to handle Rogue Reviews, Peer Review Improvement using Natural Language Processing. The consolidated set of papers and resources so used are released in https://github.com/manikandan-ravikiran/cs6460-Survey-2.Comment: This is a review assignment, work on progress. Expected to be updated regularl

Improving Dialog Evaluation with a Multi-reference Adversarial Dataset and Large Scale Pretraining

There is an increasing focus on model-based dialog evaluation metrics such as ADEM, RUBER, and the more recent BERT-based metrics. These models aim to assign a high score to all relevant responses and a low score to all irrelevant responses. Ideally, such models should be trained using multiple relevant and irrelevant responses for any given context. However, no such data is publicly available, and hence existing models are usually trained using a single relevant response and multiple randomly selected responses from other contexts (random negatives). To allow for better training and robust evaluation of model-based metrics, we introduce the DailyDialog++ dataset, consisting of (i) five relevant responses for each context and (ii) five adversarially crafted irrelevant responses for each context. Using this dataset, we first show that even in the presence of multiple correct references, n-gram based metrics and embedding based metrics do not perform well at separating relevant responses from even random negatives. While model-based metrics perform better than n-gram and embedding based metrics on random negatives, their performance drops substantially when evaluated on adversarial examples. To check if large scale pretraining could help, we propose a new BERT-based evaluation metric called DEB, which is pretrained on 727M Reddit conversations and then finetuned on our dataset. DEB significantly outperforms existing models, showing better correlation with human judgements and better performance on random negatives (88.27% accuracy). However, its performance again drops substantially, when evaluated on adversarial responses, thereby highlighting that even large-scale pretrained evaluation models are not robust to the adversarial examples in our dataset. The dataset and code are publicly available.Comment: Accepted for publication in TAC