Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 40 references

eRevise+RF: A Writing Evaluation System for Assessing Student Essay Revisions and Providing Formative Feedback

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Automated revision feedback lifts student essay quality

desk verdict Solid system description with honest NLP evaluation, but the causal claim that feedback drives writing gains is not supported by the current evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00715 v1 pith:2OMHWZXN submitted 2025-01-01 cs.CL cs.AI

Zhexiong Liu , Diane Litman , Elaine Wang , Tianwen Li , Mason Gobat , Lindsay Clare Matsumura , Richard Correnti This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords automatedwritingevaluationrevisionfeedbackargumentativeevidenceuseformativeessayclassificationResponse-to-TextAssessmentNLPineducation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper presents eRevise+RF, an automated writing evaluation system that tries to do two things at once: assess whether a student's revision actually responds to the feedback they received, and then give new feedback on the revision itself. The system was deployed with 406 students in grades 4 to 8 across three schools, where students wrote three drafts of an argumentative essay. The paper claims the assessment works: its evidence-use scores agree with human raters, and its revision classifiers identify surface versus content changes, evidence versus reasoning changes, and successful versus unsuccessful revisions. It also claims the feedback works: essay quality, measured by evidence count and specificity, improves from draft to draft, and the pattern of gains lines up with which feedback message each student received. A sympathetic reader would care because the system addresses a known gap: most automated writing evaluation systems score a single draft but do not tell students whether their revision fixed the problem.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a two-stage pipeline of evidence scoring indicators and revision classifiers. The indicators NPE and SPC are extracted from each draft using sliding windows and keyword similarity to count evidence topics and specific examples; thresholds on them select one of three evidence-feedback messages. For revisions, consecutive drafts are sentence-aligned, and three classifiers label each revision pair: RC-Content (surface or content), RC-Evidence (evidence or reasoning), and RC-Success (successful or unsuccessful). These labels, combined with NPE/SPC changes, navigate a feedback tree with ten revision-feedback levels, from 'no attempt' through 'repeated evidence' to 'successful evidence plus successful reasoning'.

What would settle it

A controlled deployment in which comparable classrooms write the same Response-to-Text essay through three drafts without any eRevise+RF feedback would settle it: if their NPE and SPC gains match the feedback group's gains, the system's feedback is not the cause of improvement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that natural language processing can scaffold the revision process in argumentative writing, not just grade the final product. eRevise+RF extends an earlier evidence-feedback system by adding a revision-assessment layer: it aligns consecutive drafts, classifies each content revision, and maps the classifications plus changes in evidence indicators onto a ten-level revision feedback tree. In the deployment, NPE (number of evidence topics) and SPC (specificity) rose across drafts, with the largest jumps after the first round of evidence-use feedback and smaller but consistent gains after revision feedback; annotated gold scores showed the same direction as system predictions. The paper's summary is that both evidence use feedback and revision feedback are helpful, in ways aligned with the feedback message each student received.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that feedback, rather than practice, caused the essay gains assumes that students who wrote three drafts without receiving feedback would not have improved as much, because the deployment had no control group.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Students who received evidence-use feedback on their first draft and revision feedback on their second draft produced third drafts with higher predicted NPE and SPC, across both the MVP and SPACE reading passages.
  • The system can separate superficial edits from meaning-altering changes with F1 of 0.96, so revision feedback can focus on content changes rather than typos.
  • Because feedback selection is rule-based and transparent, teachers and students can see why a particular message was chosen, unlike a black-box language model.
  • The revised NPE algorithm reported in the limitations reaches quadratic weighted kappa of 0.87 against human annotations, up from 0.67, suggesting the scoring component can be improved with data-driven tuning.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: the deployment had no control group, so some of the observed improvement may reflect the simple act of writing three drafts; a randomized or wait-list design would separate the feedback effect from practice effects.
  • Editorial inference: because RC-Evidence and RC-Success were trained partly on college-level revision corpora and have F1 of 0.66 and 0.70, their mistakes may concentrate on younger students' less explicit reasoning; fine-tuning on the newly collected grade 4-8 revisions could tighten the feedback loop.
  • Editorial inference: the observed NPE drop of 11.3% when EF2 students revised for specificity hints at a completeness-specificity trade-off that future feedback could address explicitly by telling students to preserve breadth while adding detail.
  • Editorial inference: the revision feedback tree is a reusable template for other formative tasks in which a learner responds to feedback, such as scientific explanations or short-answer reasoning, with the success labels guiding the next prompt.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents eRevise+RF, an automated writing evaluation system that scores student argumentative essays on evidence use (NPE and SPC), extracts and classifies revisions across drafts, and provides expert-designed evidence-use feedback (EF1-EF3) and revision feedback (RF1-RF10). The system was deployed with 6 teachers and 406 students in grades 4-8 across two RTA article conditions; the analysis is based on students who completed all three drafts (172 MVP and 150 SPACE essays). Two research questions are addressed: RQ1 asks whether the NLP components can effectively assess essays and revisions, and RQ2 asks whether the feedback helps students improve. RQ1 is evaluated against human annotations, reporting QWK of 0.67 (NPE) and 0.82 (SPC), and F1 of 0.96 (RC-Content), 0.66 (RC-Evidence), and 0.70 (RC-Success). RQ2 is evaluated by tracking predicted (and for MVP, gold-annotated) NPE/SPC across drafts and by comparing gains for students receiving different EF levels. The paper concludes that both evidence-use feedback and revision feedback help students improve their writing.

Significance. The NLP assessment contribution of RQ1 is solid and well supported: the evaluation uses gold human annotations, reports standard agreement metrics, includes grade-level breakdowns and confusion matrices, and the system source code is publicly released. The integration of revision classification with formative feedback in a deployed, multi-school system is a useful engineering contribution for the AWE community. The causal claim embedded in RQ2, however, is not established by the current analysis: the draft-to-draft comparisons lack a control group, the feedback assignment is baseline-dependent, and no significance or attrition analyses are reported. The paper's own Limitations section acknowledges the missing control group, but the Section 5.3 analysis is intended to address this gap and, as presented, cannot support the inference that feedback, rather than practice or floor effects, drove the observed gains.

major comments (3)
  1. [5.3, Table 4, Appendix D] The Section 5.3 evidence for feedback effectiveness is confounded by the feedback assignment mechanism. Appendix D (Table 5) assigns EF1 when NPE is at most alpha, EF2 when NPE > alpha and SPC at most beta, and EF3 otherwise. Consequently, the EF1 group starts with the lowest baseline NPE (1.09 vs. 2.64 vs. 3.03 in the annotated MVP rows of Table 4) and has the most room for improvement. The observed EF1 gains of +128% NPE and +108% SPC are exactly the pattern expected from regression to the mean and floor effects even if the feedback content had no specific effect. No significance tests, confidence intervals, or baseline-adjusted analyses are reported. The Section 5.3 conclusion that 'both evidence use feedback and revision feedback are helpful for students to improve their writing' therefore does not follow from these data.
  2. [4, 5.3] The analysis sample is the set of students who submitted all three drafts, but the deployment-level counts in Section 4 show substantial attrition: 194 MVP draft-1/draft-2 to 172 draft-3, and 176 SPACE draft-1/draft-2 to 150 draft-3. If attrition correlates with low performance or low engagement, the completers' gains are biased upward. The paper does not report any comparison of baseline (draft-1) NPE/SPC between completers and non-completers, nor does it state the direction of any such difference. Without an attrition analysis, the draft-over-draft improvements in Tables 3 and 4 cannot be interpreted as average gains for the full deployed population.
  3. [5.3, Appendix E] The draft2-to-draft3 comparison intended to support the revision-feedback claim is also not statistically validated. The EF2 group in the MVP annotated analysis has only N=11 students, and its predicted NPE actually decreases by 10.4% (Table 4), so the aggregate patterns are unstable and are not disaggregated by the ten RF types used in Figure 3/Table 6. Additionally, the RF selection relies on RC-Evidence and RC-Success, whose F1 scores are 0.66 and 0.70 (Table 2); the paper does not examine how classifier errors propagate to the RF messages or to the observed NPE/SPC changes. The claim that revision feedback is helpful would require either a comparison against a no-revision-feedback condition or at least a per-RF-type analysis with effect sizes and uncertainty intervals.
minor comments (5)
  1. [3.1] The text reads 'Glove embedding' and 'GloVe' in the same sentence; the capitalization should be consistent (GloVe).
  2. [5.1, Table 2] Please state whether the QWK values for NPE and SPC are computed on the 516 MVP essays described in the text, and clarify why the revision-classifier sample sizes (1,525 and 1,024) differ from the 172 re-annotated draft pairs; the current paragraph is clear on the sources but a one-sentence summary would help.
  3. [5.2] The paper reports percentage increases (e.g., 24.6% NPE, 38.5% SPC) without confidence intervals. Adding standard errors or effect sizes would help the reader judge the stability of the improvement.
  4. [Appendix D, Table 5] The definition of alpha as 'half of the topics discussed' applies to the MVP article (4 topics), yielding alpha=2, but the SPACE article also has 4 topics; if alpha and beta were set identically for both articles, this should be stated explicitly.
  5. [5.4, Figure 4] The case study describes the student receiving RF after draft2, but the figure caption does not indicate the specific RF message; adding the message text next to the relevant arrow would make the example easier to follow.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; assessment components are validated against human annotations, and the feedback-effect analysis is confounded but not definitionally circular.

full rationale

eRevise+RF's assessment claims (RQ1) are validated against expert annotations: NPE/SPC QWK of 0.67/0.82 and classifier F1 scores of 0.96/0.66/0.70 in Table 2, so the NLP components are not assumed correct by self-citation. The backend 'builds on and integrates NLP algorithms from our prior research' (Section 3.1), but those prior components are re-evaluated on newly annotated MVP essays, making the citations independently checked evidence rather than circular load-bearing support. The helpfulness claim (RQ2) rests on pre-post NPE/SPC changes in Section 5.3 and Table 4; the EF assignment thresholds in Appendix D and the outcome changes are not identity equations, since students could fail to increase NPE/SPC, and indeed the EF2 draft2-to-draft3 row shows a decline. The Limitations section explicitly acknowledges that the deployments 'lacked a control group where students wrote without receiving feedback'; this is a causal-validity limitation, not a circular step. The baseline-dependent EF grouping in Section 5.3 raises regression-to-the-mean and attrition concerns, but those belong to correctness risk, not to circularity, because no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no outcome is defined as the same quantity as the assignment rule. No result is imported solely from self-citations; the central integration claim is independent of the correctness of any single prior component. Therefore no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities. It relies on expert-set thresholds (alpha, beta, gamma) and on the validity of NLP indicators and classifiers for the target age group. The central causal claim also assumes students respond to feedback as intended.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha (evidence feedback threshold for NPE) = 2
    Expert-designed threshold in Appendix D: essay receives EF1 if NPE <= alpha; set to half the number of RTA article topics. Not fitted to this dataset, but hand-chosen.
  • beta (evidence feedback threshold for SPC) = 4
    Expert-designed threshold in Appendix D: essay receives EF2 if NPE > alpha and SPC <= beta; set to half the example categories.
  • gamma (revision feedback threshold for SPC change) = 2
    Expert-designed threshold in Appendix E: RF5/RF6/RF7 decisions depend on whether SPC change exceeds gamma. Hand-chosen.
  • GloVe cosine similarity threshold = 0.9
    Used in NPE/SPC extraction, inherited from prior eRevise work (Zhang et al. 2019), not fitted in this paper.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The scoring indicators NPE and SPC are valid measures of evidence use quality.
    The feedback and evaluation rely on these indicators as proxies for essay quality; validated only via annotator agreement (QWK 0.67/0.82), not against external writing outcomes.
  • domain assumption Students read and respond to the feedback messages as intended.
    The causal chain from feedback to improvement assumes students attend to and act on the messages; no process data or surveys are analyzed.
  • domain assumption The revision classifiers transfer to grades 4-8 despite being trained on college-level corpora.
    RC-Content is trained on ArgRewrite v2 (college), RC-Success on prior work; F1 on this deployment is 0.66-0.70, indicating imperfect transfer.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of eRevise+RF: A Writing Evaluation System for Assessing Student Essay Revisions and Providing Formative Feedback." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2OMHWZXN

@misc{pith2026250100715,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: eRevise+RF: A Writing Evaluation System for Assessing Student Essay Revisions and Providing Formative Feedback},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2OMHWZXN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00715}
}
read the original abstract

The ability to revise essays in response to feedback is important for students' writing success. An automated writing evaluation (AWE) system that supports students in revising their essays is thus essential. We present eRevise+RF, an enhanced AWE system for assessing student essay revisions (e.g., changes made to an essay to improve its quality in response to essay feedback) and providing revision feedback. We deployed the system with 6 teachers and 406 students across 3 schools in Pennsylvania and Louisiana. The results confirmed its effectiveness in (1) assessing student essays in terms of evidence usage, (2) extracting evidence and reasoning revisions across essays, and (3) determining revision success in responding to feedback. The evaluation also suggested eRevise+RF is a helpful system for young students to improve their argumentative writing skills through revision and formative feedback.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.00715 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The eRevise+RF system usage pipeline, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. System architecture, including AES and AES+RF backend systems and user frontend interface. The AES [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Revision feedback tree, where solid squares [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The example of a MVP essay, revising from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: eRevise+RF System Student Interface: Main Page. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: eRevise+RF System Teacher Interface: Submission Page. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tazin Afrin, Elaine Lin Wang, Diane Litman, Lindsay Clare Matsumura, and Richard Correnti. 2020. Annotation and classification of evidence and reasoning revisions in argumentative writing. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, Seattle, Washington, USA (Remote)

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Talita Anthonio, Irshad Bhat, and Michael Roth. 2020. https://aclanthology.org/2020.lrec-1.702 wiki H ow T o I mprove: A resource and analyses on edits in instructional texts . In Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, pages 5721--5729, Marseille, France. European Language Resources Association

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Shabnam Behzad, Omid Kashefi, and Swapna Somasundaran. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.lrec-main.144 Assessing online writing feedback resources: Generative AI vs. good samaritans . In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 2024), pages 1638--1644, Torino, Ita...

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Jill Burstein, Brian Riordan, and Daniel McCaffrey. 2020. Expanding automated writing evaluation. In Handbook of automated scoring, pages 329--346. Chapman and Hall/CRC

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Ruining Chong, Cunliang Kong, Liu Wu, Zhenghao Liu, Ziye Jin, Liner Yang, Yange Fan, Hanghang Fan, and Erhong Yang. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-short.105 Leveraging prefix transfer for multi-intent text revision . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 1219-...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-short.105 2023

  6. [6]

    Richard Correnti, Lindsay Clare Matsumura, Laura Hamilton, and Elaine Wang. 2013. Assessing students' skills at writing analytically in response to texts. The Elementary School Journal, 114(2):142--177

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Richard Correnti, Lindsay Clare Matsumura, Elaine Lin Wang, Diane Litman, and Haoran Zhang. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100084 Building a validity argument for an automated writing evaluation system (erevise) as a formative assessment . Computers and Education Open, 3:100084

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Rip Correnti, Elaine Lin Wang, Lindsay Clare Matsumura, Diane Litman, Zhexiong Liu, and Tianwen Li. 2024. Supporting students' text-based evidence use via formative automated writing and revision assessment. In The Routledge international handbook of automated essay evaluation, pages 221--243. Routledge

    work page 2024

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Mike D ' Arcy, Alexis Ross, Erin Bransom, Bailey Kuehl, Jonathan Bragg, Tom Hope, and Doug Downey. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.377 ARIES : A corpus of scientific paper edits made in response to peer reviews . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the...

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/N19-1423 BERT : Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding . In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Associat...

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    Wanyu Du, Vipul Raheja, Dhruv Kumar, Zae Myung Kim, Melissa Lopez, and Dongyeop Kang. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.250 Understanding iterative revision from human-written text . In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational L...

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Johanna Fleckenstein, Lucas W Liebenow, and Jennifer Meyer. 2023. Automated feedback and writing: A multi-level meta-analysis of effects on students' performance. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 6:1162454

    2023

  5. [13]

    Steve Graham, Karen R Harris, and Tanya Santangelo. 2015. Research-based writing practices and the common core: Meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. The Elementary School Journal, 115(4):498--522

    2015

  6. [14]

    Qian Guo, Ruiling Feng, and Yuanfang Hua. 2023. Automated written corrective feedback in Research Paper Revision: The good, the bad, and the missing. Routledge

    2023

  7. [15]

    Shi Huawei and Vahid Aryadoust. 2023. A systematic review of automated writing evaluation systems. Education and Information Technologies, 28(1):771--795

    2023

  8. [16]

    L \'e ane Jourdan, Florian Boudin, Nicolas Hernandez, and Richard Dufour. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.lrec-main.257 CASIMIR : A corpus of scientific articles enhanced with multiple author-integrated revisions . In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference ...

    2024

  9. [17]

    Omid Kashefi, Tazin Afrin, Meghan Dale, Christopher Olshefski, Amanda Godley, Diane Litman, and Rebecca Hwa. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-021-09567-z Argrewrite v.2: an annotated argumentative revisions corpus . Language Resources and Evaluation, pages 1574--0218

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Deanna Kuhn, Laura Hemberger, and Valerie Khait. 2017. Argue with me: Argument as a path to developing students' thinking and writing. Routledge

    2017

  11. [19]

    Richard Landis and Gary Koch

    J. Richard Landis and Gary Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1):159--174

    1977

  12. [20]

    Tianwen Li, Zhexiong Liu, Lindsay Matsumura, Elaine Wang, Diane Litman, and Richard Correnti. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.bea-1.30 Using large language models to assess young students ' writing revisions . In Proceedings of the 19th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP fo...

    2024

  13. [21]

    Diane Litman, Tazin Afrin, Omid Kashefi, Christopher Olshefski, Amanda Godley, and Rebecca Hwa. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11644-5_52 An automated writing evaluation system for supporting self-monitored revising . In Artificial Intelligence in Education: 23rd Inte...

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    Lei Liu and Min Zhu. 2022. Bertalign: Improved word embedding-based sentence alignment for chinese--english parallel corpora of literary texts. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities

    2022

  15. [23]

    Zhexiong Liu, Diane Litman, Elaine Wang, Lindsay Matsumura, and Richard Correnti. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.bea-1.24 Predicting the quality of revisions in argumentative writing . In Proceedings of the 18th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educationa...

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Masato Mita, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Masato Hagiwara, Tomoya Mizumoto, Jun Suzuki, and Kentaro Inui. 2024. https://aclanthology.org/2024.bea-1.21 Towards automated document revision: Grammatical error correction, fluency edits, and beyond . In Proceedings of the 19th Workshop on In...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher Manning. 2014. https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/D14-1162 G lo V e: Global vectors for word representation . In Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing ( EMNLP ) , pages 1532--1543, Doh...

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    Zahra Rahimi, Diane Litman, Richard Correnti, Elaine Wang, and Lindsay Clare Matsumura. 2017. Assessing students’ use of evidence and organization in response-to-text writing: Using natural language processing for rubric-based automated scoring. International Journal of Artifi...

    2017

  19. [27]

    Roscoe, Erica L

    Rod D. Roscoe, Erica L. Snow, and Danielle S. McNamara. 2013. Feedback and revising in an intelligent tutoring system for writing strategies. In Artificial Intelligence in Education, pages 259--268, Berlin, Heidelberg. Springer Berlin Heidelberg

    2013

  20. [28]

    Victor Sanh, Lysandre Debut, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf. 2019. https://www.emc2-ai.org/assets/docs/neurips-19/emc2-neurips19-paper-33.pdf Distilbert, a distilled version of bert: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter . In EMC2: Efficient Methods for Deep Learning Workshop...

    2019

  21. [29]

    Antonette Shibani, Simon Knight, and Simon Buckingham Shum. 2018. Understanding revisions in student writing through revision graphs. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, pages 332--336, Cham. Springer International Publishing

    2018

  22. [30]

    Alexander Spangher, Xiang Ren, Jonathan May, and Nanyun Peng. 2022. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.10 N ews E dits: A news article revision dataset and a novel document-level reasoning challenge . In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter...

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Elaine Lin Wang, Lindsay Clare Matsumura, Richard Correnti, Diane Litman, Haoran Zhang, Emily Howe, Ahmed Magooda, and Rafael Quintana. 2020. erevis(ing): Students’ revision of text evidence use in an automated writing evaluation system. Assessing Writing, 44:100449

    2020

  24. [32]

    Joshua Wilson, Yue Huang, Corey Palermo, Gaysha Beard, and Charles A MacArthur. 2021. Automated feedback and automated scoring in the elementary grades: Usage, attitudes, and associations with writing outcomes in a districtwide implementation of mi write. International Journal...

    2021

  25. [33]

    Hashemi, Rebecca Hwa, and Diane Litman

    Fan Zhang, Homa B. Hashemi, Rebecca Hwa, and Diane Litman. 2017. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P17-1144 A corpus of annotated revisions for studying argumentative writing . In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long...

    2017 doi

  26. [34]

    Fan Zhang, Rebecca Hwa, Diane Litman, and Homa B Hashemi. 2016. Argrewrite: A web-based revision assistant for argumentative writings. In Proceedings of the 2016 conference of the north american chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Demonstrations, pages 37--41

    2016

  27. [35]

    Haoran Zhang and Diane Litman. 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.759 Automated topical component extraction using neural network attention scores from source-based essay scoring . In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Ling...

    2020 doi

  28. [36]

    Haoran Zhang and Diane Litman. 2021. https://aclanthology.org/2021.bea-1.9 Essay quality signals as weak supervision for source-based essay scoring . In Proceedings of the 16th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, pages 85--96, Online. Assoc...

    2021

  29. [37]

    Haoran Zhang, Ahmed Magooda, Diane Litman, Richard Correnti, Elaine Wang, LC Matsmura, Emily Howe, and Rafael Quintana. 2019. erevise: Using natural language processing to provide formative feedback on text evidence usage in student writing. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conferen...

    2019

  30. [38]

    Timon Ziegenbein, Gabriella Skitalinskaya, Alireza Bayat Makou, and Henning Wachsmuth. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.244 LLM -based rewriting of inappropriate argumentation using reinforcement learning from machine feedback . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual...

    2024 doi

  31. [39]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  32. [40]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.