MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385386988 · doi:10.18280/ria.370320

Evaluation of Short Answers Using Domain Specific Embedding and Siamese Stacked BiLSTM with Contrastive Loss

2023· article· en· W4385386988 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shweta Patil, Krishnakant P. Adhiya

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomain (mathematical analysis)EmbeddingComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingLinguisticsMathematicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automatic short answer evaluation is the most complex task to perform as compared to evaluation of multiple choices and true or false type questions.Short descriptive answer tries to capture the overall knowledge gained by student related to the course, his remembering and presentation capabilities of the same.But sometimes the evaluation of such short descriptive answer becomes cumbersome and time consuming.So in this study, we are trying to address the issue of automated evaluation of short descriptive answers for Data Structures course by proposing a Siamese stacked Bidirectional LSTM neural network.The model utilizes the domain specific embedding generated by training gensim Word2Vec model on Data Structures domain.Domain specific embedding helps to identify the context relevant to domain which is difficult to understand in pre-trained embedding's due to ambiguity in words.The proposed model is trained using contrastive loss function and finally evaluation is made to determine whether student answer is correct or incorrect based on model answer provided by evaluator.The proposed architecture is tested using widely used Mohler's dataset and the results obtained are compared to baseline approaches using Pearson correlation coefficient and RMSE score.Also the proposed architecture is utilized on the dataset generated for specifically Data Structures course.For Mohler's dataset proposed framework achieves the best Pearson correlation value 0.668 compared to related baseline approaches.The results obtained has shown that proposed architecture is effective in investigating the relationship between complex descriptive sentences and performs the task of evaluation more similar to that of human evaluator.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.502
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207