UKTA: Unified Korean Text Analyzer

Chulhui Kim; Do-Guk Kim; Ganghee Go; Jiho Jung; Junhyung Park; Myung Sun Shin; Seokho Ahn; Young-Duk Seo

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 37 references

UKTA: Unified Korean Text Analyzer

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Feeding Korean essays through a morpheme analyzer and 294 lexical features improves automated scoring over raw-text-only baselines.

desk verdict A useful Korean AES system paper whose central empirical claim is under-supported by missing error bars and significance tests. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09648 v1 pith:3EEQ6E73 submitted 2025-02-11 cs.CL cs.AI

Seokho Ahn , Junhyung Park , Ganghee Go , Chulhui Kim , Jiho Jung , Myung Sun Shin , Do-Guk Kim , Young-Duk Seo This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CLcs.AI

keywords AutomatedwritingevaluationKoreantextanalysisMorphemeLexicaldiversityCohesionAttention-basedscoringRubricAI-HUBEssayDataset

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

The paper tries to establish that a Korean automated writing evaluation system can be made both more accurate and more explainable by combining a high-accuracy morpheme analyzer with 294 mid-level lexical features and an attention-weighted scoring model. It reports that feeding these features into the model improves average accuracy from 0.649 to 0.657 and quadratic weighted kappa from 0.509 to 0.538 on the AI-HUB Essay Evaluation Dataset, with 9 of 10 rubric scores improving. If true, this matters because Korean writing evaluation has lagged English-language tools, and educators would gain not just scores but visible reasons for them.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a three-level pipeline: Bareun morpheme analysis produces morphemes; those morphemes feed 294 lexical features (basic counts and densities, lexical diversity indices, and cohesion via KeyBERT and SBERT); and an attention layer over the normalized features is combined with a KoBERT+BiGRU sentence encoder to predict rubric scores. The attention weights double as the paper's explainability device, ranking which features mattered for each essay.

What would settle it

Take the trained UKTA model, replace the learned attention weights with uniform or randomly permuted weights, and re-evaluate on the same test split. If accuracy and QWK stay near 0.657 and 0.538, the performance claim survives but the attention-based explanation is not load-bearing; if they drop, the weights matter but still need comparison against an independent attribution method (e.g., leave-one-out or SHAP) to confirm they rank features correctly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

UKTA claims that using all suggested features—basic lexical statistics, lexical diversity measures such as TTR, MSTTR, MATTR, MTLD, HD-D, and vocd-D, plus cohesion scores from KeyBERT topic keywords and SBERT sentence similarity—improves automated Korean essay scoring over a baseline that reads raw text only. The system pipelines Bareun morpheme analysis into these 294 features, normalizes them, weights them with an attention layer, and concatenates the result with a KoBERT-BiGRU sentence representation before predicting 10 rubric scores. The attention weights are then presented as the features that contributed to each score.

Load-bearing premise

The explainability claim assumes that the attention weights over the 294 features truthfully show which features drove each score; the paper does not validate this, and the score improvement could hold even if the attention weights were meaningless.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Korean essay scoring can be improved without changing the deep learning backbone, simply by adding morpheme-derived features.
The same feature set gives a built-in explanation channel: every score comes with a list of the top lexical and cohesion features that influenced it.
Accurate morpheme analysis reduces error propagation into later features, which matters for agglutinative Korean morphology.
The system provides a reusable analysis tool for educators, with morpheme, feature, and rubric views of the same text.
The reported gains set a new baseline for Korean automated writing evaluation on the AI-HUB dataset.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: The attention-weights-as-importance claim is untested; a permutation or uniform-attention ablation would show whether the explainability story holds. This is my inference, not the paper's.
Editorial inference: If the feature enrichment generalizes, it could transfer to other morphologically rich languages (e.g., Turkish, Finnish, Japanese) with their own morpheme analyzers.
Editorial inference: The feature set of 294 is large relative to the dataset; pruning or grouping features could reveal which families (diversity vs cohesion) drive the gain.
Editorial inference: QWK gains are concentrated in a few rubrics; a rubric-by-rubric significance test would tell whether the average improvement is robust. This is my inference.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a decent systems paper for Korean automated writing evaluation, and the tool itself looks useful. But the main empirical claim—that adding 294 lexical features improves scoring over raw text—is not statistically established as reported.

What's genuinely new: the integration. The pieces (KoBERT, BiGRU, handcrafted features with attention, lexical diversity and cohesion measures) are all known, but putting them together for Korean with a morpheme analyzer and making it available as a multi-view tool is a real contribution. The qualitative analysis in Table 2 is a nice attempt to show what the attention weights pick out. The writing is clear, and they use the largest Korean essay dataset available.

The soft spots are real. Table 1 gives averages over five runs but no standard deviations, no per-run values, and no significance tests. The accuracy gain is 0.008 (0.649 to 0.657) on a test set of about 6,000 essays; that's roughly one standard error. The QWK gain is larger (0.509 to 0.538), but without variance you can't tell if either is beyond run-to-run noise. The paper calls the improvement 'significant' in Section 4.2, but there is no statistical test behind that word. That's an overclaim. Second, they compare only against their own KoBERT+BiGRU baseline, not against existing Korean AES systems like PASTA-I, so the practical value relative to prior tools is unclear. Third, the explainability argument assumes attention weights are faithful feature-importance measures; that assumption is asserted, not validated. Finally, the full 294-feature set is not listed, which makes reproduction harder.

None of this is fatal. The architecture is sensible and the system fills a gap for Korean text analysis. The missing statistics and comparisons are the kinds of things a referee can reasonably ask for. The paper is aimed at the Korean language education and NLP community; those readers will get value from the tool design and the qualitative findings, even if the quantitative claim needs more support.

I'd send it to peer review rather than desk-reject; with added error bars, a significance test, and a comparison to at least one existing Korean AES model, the central claim could be put on solid ground.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces UKTA, a Korean text analysis and automated writing evaluation system with three layers: morpheme analysis using the Bareun analyzer, extraction of 294 lexical diversity and cohesion features, and a neural scoring model that combines KoBERT+BiGRU sentence representations with an attention-weighted essay-level feature vector. On the AI-HUB Essay Evaluation Dataset, the authors report that the feature-augmented model improves average accuracy from 0.649 to 0.657 and quadratic weighted kappa from 0.509 to 0.538 over five runs, with 9 of 10 rubric scores improving. The paper also presents a qualitative analysis of attention weights for one low-scoring and one high-scoring essay.

Significance. If the reported improvements are reliable, UKTA is a useful multi-view tool for Korean writing evaluation, an under-resourced area relative to English. The feature pipeline is computed from essay text independently of rubric labels, so the comparison against the raw-text baseline is not circular. The integration of low-level morpheme analysis, mid-level lexical/cohesion features, and high-level rubric scoring is a sensible architecture, and the authors are explicit about using standard metrics. The main value is practical: a comprehensive Korean system with explainability-oriented outputs. However, the evidence for the central claim is currently thin because the quantitative comparison lacks uncertainty quantification, and the explainability claim depends on an unvalidated interpretation of attention weights.

major comments (4)

[Section 4.2, Table 1] The central quantitative claim is not supported by the reported statistics. The text states a "significant improvement," but Table 1 reports only five-run averages with no standard deviations, per-run values, confidence intervals, or significance tests. For accuracy near 0.65 on roughly 6,000 test essays, the standard error of a proportion is about 0.006, so the average gain of 0.008 (0.649 to 0.657) is only about 1.3 standard errors; with only five runs, the sampling error of the mean difference is larger. The QWK gain of 0.029 (0.509 to 0.538) is likewise reported without uncertainty. The authors should provide per-rubric and overall variance, paired significance tests (for example, bootstrap over essays or McNemar for accuracy), and effect sizes, and they should temper the wording if the improvement does not survive such analysis.
[Section 3.2 and Section 3.3] The feature set, which is the treatment in the comparison, is incompletely specified. Section 3.2 states that 294 features are extracted and names three broad groups, but only Equations (1)-(6) and a few cohesion concepts are described; the full list of 294 features and their exact definitions are not given. Since the baseline comparison is "with all suggested features" versus raw text, the experiment is not reproducible and the reader cannot tell which components drive the result. A full feature inventory, the precise computation of each feature, and the hyperparameter settings used for the feature pipeline are needed.
[Section 3.3 and Section 4.2, qualitative results] The explainability contribution rests on an unvalidated assumption. Attention weights from the essay-level attention layer are interpreted as feature importance and used to explain the model's predictions for low- and high-scoring essays. No evidence is provided that these attention weights faithfully reflect influence on predictions; attention can be an unreliable importance measure. The authors should validate the interpretation with an alternative such as permutation importance, leave-one-feature-out, or gradient-based attribution, or explicitly reframe the qualitative analysis as a case study of the model's attention patterns rather than as an explanation of scoring behavior.
[Section 4.1, implementation details] The paper says each experiment was performed five times and averages were used, but no random seed information or variance across the five runs is reported. Since the differences are small, run-to-run variability is a plausible alternative explanation for the observed gains. Reporting per-run results for all ten rubrics would also clarify whether the improvement is consistent or driven by a few rubrics; for example, the grammar rubric is unchanged at 0.601 accuracy and 0.280 QWK, and the originality QWK jumps from 0.069 to 0.172, which suggests heterogeneity that the current aggregate presentation obscures.

minor comments (5)

[Figure 3 caption] The caption says "both table (A-1) and list (A-1)" and contains the phrase "intuitive intuitive interface"; the duplicate label and the typo should be fixed.
[Equation (4), Section 3.2] The definition of MTLD is ambiguous: it states that K is the largest number of segments where the TTR of each segment is below a threshold, which is not the standard MTLD formulation. Please clarify how segments are constructed and how the threshold is applied.
[Table 2 notes] The table notes contain typos: "Content nown" should be "Content noun," "Content coupla" should be "copula," and "Top-10 feature" should be "Top-10 features."
[Equations (1)-(3), Section 3.2] The prose and equations use "token" and "morpheme" interchangeably for the counting unit; since the system is morpheme-based, the counting unit should be defined once and used consistently.
[Section 3.2, Cohesion] The description of topic-consistency computation is unclear: it says the topic sentence is identified by comparing the extracted keyword with each sentence, but the algorithm is not specified. Please state how keywords are matched to sentences and how the similarity scores are aggregated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity: the feature-ablation experiment uses label-independent inputs; score 1 only for a minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The central claim is an empirical feature-ablation comparison, not a derivation. The 294 essay-level features (basic lexical features, lexical diversity, and cohesion) are computed from raw essay text by morpheme analysis and the closed-form formulas in Eqs. (1)-(6), before any rubric labels are used; labels enter only through the MSE training loss (Section 3.3). The baseline and UKTA share the same KoBERT/BiGRU sentence encoder and the same AI-HUB labels, so the Table 1 comparison is a controlled ablation of whether adding f in R^294 helps. Nothing is fitted to the test labels and then renamed a prediction. The attention weights are used for post-hoc attribution (Section 4.2), and their faithfulness is an unvalidated modeling assumption, not a circular reduction of the performance claim. The only self-citation is [18], used as the source of the cohesion feature definitions; it is a component tool, not the target result, and its correctness is externally checkable. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported by self-citation. The paper's failure to report standard deviations or significance tests (Section 4.2) is an evidence-quality concern, not circularity. Accordingly, no circular step is found; the score of 1 reflects only the presence of a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

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

The paper's results rest on several unverified domain assumptions: the accuracy of the morpheme analyzer, the validity of the external embedding models for Korean, the reliability of the dataset labels, and the interpretability of attention weights. The free parameters reflect that several standard lexical diversity formulas contain parameters whose values are not disclosed.

free parameters (4)

MSTTR/MATTR window size (n)
The window size for segmentation is required in Equations (2) and (3) but its value is never specified.
MTLD TTR threshold (theta_TTR)
The threshold for segment TTR in Equation (4) is a free parameter but no value is given.
Feature set composition (294 features)
The paper states 294 features but only a subset is described; the exact composition is a design choice that affects the result.
VOCD subsample sizes
Equation (6) uses subsample sizes n=35 to 50 with 100 random samples, but the exact settings are not fully specified.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Bareun morpheme analyzer is accurate for Korean
Section 3.1 relies on Bareun to minimize error propagation, but no accuracy evaluation is provided for this dataset.
domain assumption KeyBERT and SBERT provide valid keyword extraction and semantic similarity for Korean
Used in Section 3.2 for cohesion features; no Korean-specific validation is shown.
domain assumption Attention weights are interpretable as feature importance
Sections 3.3 and 4.2 treat attention weights as explanations without validation.
domain assumption AI-HUB Essay Evaluation Dataset labels are reliable
Section 4.1 states scores were assigned by human raters but does not provide inter-rater reliability.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of UKTA: Unified Korean Text Analyzer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3EEQ6E73

@misc{pith2026250209648,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: UKTA: Unified Korean Text Analyzer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3EEQ6E73}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09648}
}

read the original abstract

Evaluating writing quality is complex and time-consuming often delaying feedback to learners. While automated writing evaluation tools are effective for English, Korean automated writing evaluation tools face challenges due to their inability to address multi-view analysis, error propagation, and evaluation explainability. To overcome these challenges, we introduce UKTA (Unified Korean Text Analyzer), a comprehensive Korea text analysis and writing evaluation system. UKTA provides accurate low-level morpheme analysis, key lexical features for mid-level explainability, and transparent high-level rubric-based writing scores. Our approach enhances accuracy and quadratic weighted kappa over existing baseline, positioning UKTA as a leading multi-perspective tool for Korean text analysis and writing evaluation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09648 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** UKTA is a comprehensive Korean text analyzer that provides morpheme analysis, lexical feature analysis, and explainable writing evaluation: (A) Users can input Korean text as a file or paragraph, (B) Display multi-perspective results such as morphemes and lexical features, and (C) Provide explainable, visualized writing evaluation results in the form of rubric scores, along with the top features that contributed to … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Illustrative overview of UKTA. dataset by combining argument mining techniques and a RoBERTabased model pre-trained on the Korean Language Understanding Evaluation (KLUE) [28] dataset. Their model effectively analyzes the logical structure of Korean essays by generating representation vectors that accurately reflect argumentative structures. Moreover, [37] suggests PASTA-I, a KoELECTRA [19]-based automated scoring… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** UKTA functionality. (A) Functionality in morpheme analysis results: Providing both table (A-1) and list (A-1) format, with an interactive and intuitive intuitive interface; results can be downloaded in JSON and TXT formats (A-3). (B) Functionality in lexical feature analysis results: Provided as categorized lexical features (B-1) with a list format (B-2); results can be downloaded in TXT and CSV format with selected… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[1]

Beata Beigman Klebanov and Nitin Madnani. 2020. Automated Evaluation of Writing – 50 Years and Counting. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics . Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 7796–7810. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.697

doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.697 2020
[2]

John B Carroll. 1964. Language and thought. Reading Improvement 2, 1 (1964), 80

work page 1964
[3]

John W Chotlos. 1944. IV. A statistical and comparative analysis of individual written language samples. Psychological Monographs 56, 2 (1944), 75

work page 1944
[4]

Michael A Covington. 2007. MATTR user manual. Technical Report. University of Georgia Artificial Intelligence Center

work page 2007
[5]

Scott A Crossley, Kristopher Kyle, and Mihai Dascalu. 2019. The Tool for the Automatic Analysis of Cohesion 2.0: Integrating semantic similarity and text overlap. Behavior research methods 51 (2019), 14–27

work page 2019
[6]

Scott A Crossley, Kristopher Kyle, and Danielle S McNamara. 2016. The tool for the automatic analysis of text cohesion (TAACO): Automatic assessment of local, global, and text cohesion. Behavior research methods 48 (2016), 1227–1237

work page 2016
[7]

Paul Deane. 2022. The Importance of Assessing Student Writing and Improving Writing Instruction. Research Notes. Educational Testing Service (2022)

work page 2022
[8]

Afrizal Doewes, Akrati Saxena, Yulong Pei, and Mykola Pechenizkiy. 2022. Indi- vidual Fairness Evaluation for Automated Essay Scoring System. International Educational Data Mining Society (2022)

work page 2022

Show all 37 references

[9]

Bridgid Finn and Burcu Arslan. 2024. Memory and Metacognitive Processes Recruited During Educational Assessment. In The Oxford Handbook of Human Memory, Two Volume Pack: Foundations and Applications. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190917982.013.71

2024
[10]

Graesser, Danielle S

Arthur C. Graesser, Danielle S. McNamara, Max M. Louwerse, and Zhiqiang Cai. 2004. Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 36, 2 (01 May 2004), 193–202. https: //doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564

2004 doi
[11]

Maarten Grootendorst. [n. d.]. KeyBERT. https://github.com/MaartenGr/ keyBERT. Last accessed on 2023-08-09

2023
[12]

Pierre Guiraud. 1959. Problèmes et méthodes de la statistique linguistique. (No Title) (1959)

1959
[13]

Hye Seung Ha. 2019. Lexical Richness in EFL Undergraduate Students’ Academic Writing. English Teaching 74, 3 (2019), 3–28

2019
[14]

Roeland Hout and Anne Vermeer. 2007. Comparing measures of lexical richness. In: H. Daller, J. Milton & J. Treffers-Daller (eds.), Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge (93-116). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (01 2007)

2007
[15]

Sungho Jeon and Michael Strube. 2021. Countering the Influence of Essay Length in Neural Essay Scoring. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Simple and Efficient Natural Language Processing . Association for Computational Linguistics, Virtual, 32–38

2021
[16]

Ryu Jisu and Moongee Jeon. 2019. The Development of a Korean Text Analysis System and Its Applications. Technical Report. National Research Foundation of Korea

2019
[17]

Wendell Johnson. 1944. Studies in language behavior: A program of research. Psychological Monographs 56, 2 (1944), 1–15

1944
[18]

Dong-Hyun Kim, Seokho Ahn, Euijong Lee, and Young-Duk Seo. 2024. Morpheme- based Korean text cohesion analyzer. SoftwareX 26 (2024), 101659. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.softx.2024.101659

2024
[19]

Kiyoung Kim. 2020. Pretrained Language Models For Korean. https://github. com/kiyoungkim1/LMkor

2020
[20]

Jin Lee, Jin-Kyung Jung, and Han-Saem Kim. 2024. Exploring the Possibility of Using the Feature of Lexical Diversity Indices for Automated Essay Evaluation of Korean Language Learners’ Writing. Grammar Education 50 (2024), 193–229. https://doi.org/10.21850/kge.2024.50..193

2024 doi
[21]

Yejin Lee, Youngjin Jang, Tae il Kim, Sung-Won Choi, and Harksoo Kim. 2022. An Automated Essay Scoring Pipeline Model based on Deep Neural Networks Reflecting Argumentation Structure Information. In Proceedings of the the Annual Conference on Human and Cognitive Language Techn...

2022
[22]

Andrew Matteson, Chanhee Lee, Youngbum Kim, and Heuiseok Lim. 2018. Rich Character-Level Information for Korean Morphological Analysis and Part-of- Speech Tagging. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Compu- tational Linguistics. Association for Computational...

2018
[23]

Philip M McCarthy. 2005. An assessment of the range and usefulness of lexical diversity measures and the potential of the measure of textual, lexical diversity (MTLD). Ph.D. Dissertation. The University of Memphis

2005
[24]

Philip M McCarthy and Scott Jarvis. 2007. vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Testing 24, 4 (2007), 459–488

2007
[25]

Philip M McCarthy and Scott Jarvis. 2010. MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: A validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behavior research methods 42, 2 (2010), 381–392

2010
[26]

Danielle S McNamara, Scott A Crossley, and Philip M McCarthy. 2010. Linguistic features of writing quality. Written communication 27, 1 (2010), 57–86

2010
[27]

George A Miller and Walter G Charles. 1991. Contextual correlates of semantic similarity. Language and cognitive processes 6, 1 (1991), 1–28

1991
[28]

Sungjoon Park, Jihyung Moon, Sungdong Kim, Won Ik Cho, Jiyoon Han, Jangwon Park, Chisung Song, Junseong Kim, Yongsook Song, Taehwan Oh, Joohong Lee, Juhyun Oh, Sungwon Lyu, Younghoon Jeong, Inkwon Lee, Sangwoo Seo, Dongjun Lee, Hyunwoo Kim, Myeonghwa Lee, Seongbo Jang, Seungwo...

2021 arXiv
[29]

Dadi Ramesh and Suresh Kumar Sanampudi. 2022. An automated essay scoring systems: a systematic literature review. Artificial Intelligence Review 55, 3 (2022), 2495–2527

2022
[30]

Chaitanya Ramineni, Catherine Trapani, David Williamson, Tim Davey, and Brent Bridgeman. 2012. Evaluation of the e-rater ® Scoring Engine for the GRE ® Issue and Argument Prompts. ETS Research Report Series 2012 (06 2012). https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2012.tb02284.x

2012
[31]

Marek Rei and Ronan Cummins. 2016. Sentence similarity measures for fine-grained estimation of topical relevance in learner essays. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.03144 (2016)

2016 arXiv
[32]

Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks. arXiv:cs.CL/1908.10084

2019 arXiv
[33]

Joan Torruella and Ramon Capsada. 2013. Lexical Statistics and Tipological Structures: A Measure of Lexical Richness. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 95 (2013), 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.668 Corpus Resources for Descriptive and Applied Studies...

2013 doi
[34]

Masaki Uto, Yikuan Xie, and Maomi Ueno. 2020. Neural Automated Essay Scoring Incorporating Handcrafted Features. In Proceedings of the 28th In- ternational Conference on Computational Linguistics . International Committee on Computational Linguistics, Barcelona, Spain (Online)...

2020 doi
[35]

Roeland Van Hout and Anne Vermeer. 2007. Comparing measures of lexical richness. Modelling and assessing vocabulary knowledge 93 (2007), 115

2007
[36]

Yongjie Wang, Chuang Wang, Ruobing Li, and Hui Lin. 2022. On the Use of Bert for Automated Essay Scoring: Joint Learning of Multi-Scale Essay Repre- sentation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics:...

2022
[37]

Lee Yongsang, Yoonsek Choi, and Seung-Hyun Lee. 2023. The development study of an automated scoring program for Korean essays, PASTA-I. Journal of Educational Evaluation 36, 4 (2023), 711–730

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Beata Beigman Klebanov and Nitin Madnani. 2020. Automated Evaluation of Writing – 50 Years and Counting. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics . Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, 7796–7810. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.697

doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.697 2020

[2] [2]

John B Carroll. 1964. Language and thought. Reading Improvement 2, 1 (1964), 80

work page 1964

[3] [3]

John W Chotlos. 1944. IV. A statistical and comparative analysis of individual written language samples. Psychological Monographs 56, 2 (1944), 75

work page 1944

[4] [4]

Michael A Covington. 2007. MATTR user manual. Technical Report. University of Georgia Artificial Intelligence Center

work page 2007

[5] [5]

Scott A Crossley, Kristopher Kyle, and Mihai Dascalu. 2019. The Tool for the Automatic Analysis of Cohesion 2.0: Integrating semantic similarity and text overlap. Behavior research methods 51 (2019), 14–27

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Scott A Crossley, Kristopher Kyle, and Danielle S McNamara. 2016. The tool for the automatic analysis of text cohesion (TAACO): Automatic assessment of local, global, and text cohesion. Behavior research methods 48 (2016), 1227–1237

work page 2016

[7] [7]

Paul Deane. 2022. The Importance of Assessing Student Writing and Improving Writing Instruction. Research Notes. Educational Testing Service (2022)

work page 2022

[8] [8]

Afrizal Doewes, Akrati Saxena, Yulong Pei, and Mykola Pechenizkiy. 2022. Indi- vidual Fairness Evaluation for Automated Essay Scoring System. International Educational Data Mining Society (2022)

work page 2022