AI Ed Researcher

Authors: Hongjin Kim, Jeonghyun Kang, Harksoo Kim

Abstract: This study addresses critical gaps in Automated Essay Scoring (AES) systems and Large Language Models (LLMs) with regard to their ability to effectively identify and score harmful essays. Despite advancements in AES technology, current models often overlook ethically and morally problematic elements within essays, erroneously assigning high scores to essays that may propagate harmful opinions. In this study, we introduce the Harmful Essay Detection (HED) benchmark, which includes essays integrating sensitive topics such as racism and gender bias, to test the efficacy of various LLMs in recognizing and scoring harmful content. Our findings reveal that: (1) LLMs require further enhancement to accurately distinguish between harmful and argumentative essays, and (2) both current AES models and LLMs fail to consider the ethical dimensions of content during scoring. The study underscores the need for developing more robust AES systems that are sensitive to the ethical implications of the content they are scoring.

Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.05545

Authors: Yaning Pan, Qianqian Xie, Guohui Zhang, Zekun Wang, Yongqian Wen, Yuanxing Zhang, Haoxuan Hu, Zhiyu Pan, Yibing Huang, Zhidong Gan, Yonghong Lin, An Ping, Shihao Li, Yanghai Wang, Tianhao Peng, Jiaheng Liu

Abstract: The recent development of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) has significantly advanced AI’s ability to understand visual modalities. However, existing evaluation benchmarks remain limited to single-turn question answering, overlooking the complexity of multi-turn dialogues in real-world scenarios. To bridge this gap, we introduce MT-Video-Bench, a holistic video understanding benchmark for evaluating MLLMs in multi-turn dialogues. Specifically, our MT-Video-Bench mainly assesses 6 core competencies that focus on perceptivity and interactivity, encompassing 1,000 meticulously curated multi-turn dialogues from diverse domains. These capabilities are rigorously aligned with real-world applications, such as interactive sports analysis and multi-turn video-based intelligent tutoring. With MT-Video-Bench, we extensively evaluate various state-of-the-art open-source and closed-source MLLMs, revealing their significant performance discrepancies and limitations in handling multi-turn video dialogues. The benchmark will be publicly available to foster future research.

Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.17722

Authors: Yaning Pan, Qianqian Xie, Guohui Zhang, Zekun Wang, Yongqian Wen, Yuanxing Zhang, Haoxuan Hu, Zhiyu Pan, Yibing Huang, Zhidong Gan, Yonghong Lin, An Ping, Shihao Li, Yanghai Wang, Tianhao Peng, Jiaheng Liu

Abstract: The recent development of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) has significantly advanced AI’s ability to understand visual modalities. However, existing evaluation benchmarks remain limited to single-turn question answering, overlooking the complexity of multi-turn dialogues in real-world scenarios. To bridge this gap, we introduce MT-Video-Bench, a holistic video understanding benchmark for evaluating MLLMs in multi-turn dialogues. Specifically, our MT-Video-Bench mainly assesses 6 core competencies that focus on perceptivity and interactivity, encompassing 1,000 meticulously curated multi-turn dialogues from diverse domains. These capabilities are rigorously aligned with real-world applications, such as interactive sports analysis and multi-turn video-based intelligent tutoring. With MT-Video-Bench, we extensively evaluate various state-of-the-art open-source and closed-source MLLMs, revealing their significant performance discrepancies and limitations in handling multi-turn video dialogues. The benchmark will be publicly available to foster future research.

Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.17722

Authors: Seongyeub Chu, Jongwoo Kim, Munyong Yi

Abstract: Going beyond the prediction of numerical scores, recent research in automated essay scoring has increasingly emphasized the generation of high-quality feedback that provides justification and actionable guidance. To mitigate the high cost of expert annotation, prior work has commonly relied on LLM-generated feedback to train essay assessment models. However, such feedback is often incorporated without explicit quality validation, resulting in the propagation of noise in downstream applications. To address this limitation, we propose FeedEval, an LLM-based framework for evaluating LLM-generated essay feedback along three pedagogically grounded dimensions: specificity, helpfulness, and validity. FeedEval employs dimension-specialized LLM evaluators trained on datasets curated in this study to assess multiple feedback candidates and select high-quality feedback for downstream use. Experiments on the ASAP++ benchmark show that FeedEval closely aligns with human expert judgments and that essay scoring models trained with FeedEval-filtered high-quality feedback achieve superior scoring performance. Furthermore, revision experiments using small LLMs show that the high-quality feedback identified by FeedEval leads to more effective essay revisions. We will release our code and curated datasets upon accepted.

Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.04574

Authors: Weiyue Li, Minda Zhao, Weixuan Dong, Jiahui Cai, Yuze Wei, Michael Pocress, Yi Li, Wanyan Yuan, Xiaoyue Wang, Ruoyu Hou, Kaiyuan Lou, Wenqi Zeng, Yutong Yang, Yilun Du, Mengyu Wang

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automated evaluators, yet prior works demonstrate that these LLM judges often lack consistency in scoring when the prompt is altered. However, the effect of the grading scale itself remains underexplored. We study the LLM-as-a-judge problem by comparing two kinds of raters: humans and LLMs. We collect ratings from both groups on three scales and across six benchmarks that include objective, open-ended subjective, and mixed tasks. Using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to measure absolute agreement, we find that LLM judgments are not perfectly consistent across scales on subjective benchmarks, and that the choice of scale substantially shifts human-LLM agreement, even when within-group panel reliability is high. Aggregated over tasks, the grading scale of 0-5 yields the strongest human-LLM alignment. We further demonstrate that pooled reliability can mask benchmark heterogeneity and reveal systematic subgroup differences in alignment across gender groups, strengthening the importance of scale design and sub-level diagnostics as essential components of LLM-as-a-judge protocols.

Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.03444