text
stringlengths 0
89.3k
|
---|
reviews from 24 peers on 59 homework submissions to 10 assig nments On each submission both
|
the instructor and the peers leave a numerical review and a te xtual review on each of the three
|
14explicit rubric points AnswerAlgorithm ProofAnalysi s and Clarity Additional to reviews the
|
instructor grades the peers with two scores in 0 10 normalized to 0 1 in our analysis one for
|
the quality of the numerical review and the other one for the textual review
|
Mechanism Design Class The dataset for Mechanism Design Class has 112 reviews from 1 2
|
peers on 32 homework submissions to 8 assignments On each s ubmission both the instructor
|
and the peers leave a numerical review and a textual review on each of the three explicit rubric
|
points Answer Argument and Clarity Additional to revie ws the instructor grades the peer with
|
one score for the quality of the textual review For this data set the instructor does not grade the
|
numerical review
|
Metric As our metric we compute the correlation of algorithmic sco re with two ground truth
|
scores
|
theinstructor score of the review which is potentially noisy but reflects the ins tructors
|
preference over reviews
|
theoverall student grades a weighted average over homework scores peer grading scor es
|
exam scores etc reflecting the peers ground truth perfor mance
|
We compute the correlation of peers ranking with our two met rics since the algorithmic scores
|
are not on the same scale with instructor scores We calculat e the average score of each individual
|
peer throughout the quarter sort them by this average and u se Spearmans rank correlation co
|
efficient Spearmans correlation to compare two rankings The Spearmans correlation calculates
|
the average quadratic distance of each item in two rankings The average quadratic distance is nor
|
malized such that perfectly aligning rankings have correla tion 1 reversed rankings have correlation
|
1 and independent draws have expected correlation 0
|
For correlation with our two metrics instructor score and o verall student grades we test four
|
scoring rules for textual review as introduced in Section 2 2 To understand the performance of
|
ElicitationGPT we compare against the following benchmarks
|
The algorithmic scores for numerical review We evaluate wh ether numerical reviews or
|
textual reviews are more aligned with the metrics We presen t the average quadratic AQ
|
scoring rule as the benchmark numerical scoring rule and com pare it for alignment with
|
ElicitationGPTon textual reviews In Appendix A2 we show that among numer ical scoring
|
rules the AQ scoring rule for numerical review better align s with instructor preference on
|
numerical reviews
|
The instructor scores for both textual and numerical review We evaluate whether the in
|
structor scores or ElicitationGPTscores better align with overall student grades as their tru e
|
performance
|
The naive approach the direct GPT score by prompting GPT to compare reviews and output
|
a score directly In additional alignment comparison in Se ction 43 we include manipulation
|
strategies that tricks GPT to output a higher score in contr ast to the theoretical properness
|
of ElicitationGPT
|
We present the implementation details in Appendix B includ ing prompts
|
15Numerical Textual ElicitationGPT Textual
|
AQ AMV AV AFMV AFV GPT
|
Algorithm 1 074 058 069 057 065 084
|
Algorithm 2 074 033 032 042 065 073
|
MD 032 061 062 054 063 043
|
Table 2 The Spearmans correlation between the instructor score for textual review and the
|
following scores algorithmic score for numerical review Average Quadratic ElicitationGPT and
|
direct GPT queries
|
Numerical Textual Numerical Textual ElicitationGPT Textual
|
Instructor score AQ AMV AV AFMV AFV GPT
|
Algorithm 1 049 055 031 063 068 06 065 058
|
Algorithm 2 069 048 042 023 027 052 063 046
|
MD 047 019 077 066 074 059 043
|
Table 3 The Spearmans correlation between overall student grades and the following scores
|
instructor score for both numerical review and textual revi ew algorithmic score for numerical
|
review Average Quadratic ElicitationGPT and direct GPT queries
|
42 Results
|
ElicitationGPTis built on OpenAIs GPT4 The rank correlation with our two metrics are shown
|
in Table 2 and Table 3 respectively We summarize the observ ations from empirical results in
|
Section 421 Section 422 Section 423 and Section 4 24 To make the study more replicatable
|
we set max temperature of the model to 0 001
|
In Appendix A1 we present a comparison of different scoring r ules implemented with GPT4
|
and GPT35 In Appendix A2 we compare the alignment of diffe rent numerical scoring rules with
|
the instructor score of numerical reviews
|
421 ElicitationGPT which scoring rule is better
|
Filtering top 2 topics with the most summary points improves the robustness of scoring rules among
|
which the AFV scoring rule is consistently aligned with two m etrics both the instructor score and
|
the overall student grades In fact we observe that witho ut filtering topics ElicitationGPTis
|
affected more by low summarization quality When GPT fails at s ummarization topics with the
|
same semantic meaning repeatedly appear and get scored ind ucing noise in ElicitationGPTscores
|
422 Is textual score more informative than numerical score
|
On the correlation metric with the instructor score Table 2 the AQ score on numerical review
|
has the highest correlation with instructor score on textua l review in the two algorithm classes
|
but low correlation in mechanism design class We suggest tw o possible reasons First since the
|
instructor scores numerical reviews and textual reviews at the same time the two scores could be
|
strongly correlated Second the two algorithm classes are undergraduate classes where undergrad
|
uate students possibly read numerical scoring rubrics more carefully than graduate students In
|
16mechanism design we observe some peers leave highquality textual reviews but numerical reviews
|
far away from instructors
|
On the correlation metric with the overall student grades T able 3 ElicitationGPTon textual
|
review aligns better than the AQ score on numerical review w hich suggests that textual reviews
|
convey more information about students true performance t han numerical reviews
|
423 Can we show ElicitationGPTis more robust ElicitationGPTvs Instructor
|
We believe the scores generated by ElicitationGPTare less noisy than instructor scores We observe
|
that in most of the cases where ElicitationGPTranks a peer very differently from the instructor
|
the average instructor score is affected by outlier scores on o ne or more reviews
|
We validate the robustness of ElicitationGPTby setting the metric as overall student grades
|
which we view as the peers true performances of assessing ho mework submissions Table 3
|
ElicitationGPTscores with topic filtering all display a more robust correla tion with overall stu
|
dent grades than instructor scores on textual review
|
424 Is algorithmic score better than directly querying ElicitationGPTvs GPT
|
We directly ask GPT to compare the reviews and to output a scor e In Table 2 and Table 3
|
we present the Spearmans correlation of this GPT output in t he column textual GPT When the
|
metric is instructor scores direct GPT score aligns with in structor score well in the two Algorithm
|
classes but not in the Mechanism Design class When the metr ic is overall student grades the
|
direct GPT score has similar correlation level as the instru ctor score while ElicitationGPTaligns
|
better
|
We suggest two possible reasons why the above observations h appen First on Algorithm
|
classes direct GPT score aligns well with the instructor sc ore because the prompt provides the
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.