REVIEW 2 cited by
EssayJudge: A Multi-Granular Benchmark for Assessing Automated Essay Scoring Capabilities of Multimodal Large Language Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Automated Essay Scoring (AES) plays a crucial role in educational assessment by providing scalable and consistent evaluations of writing tasks. However, traditional AES systems face three major challenges: (1) reliance on handcrafted features that limit generalizability, (2) difficulty in capturing fine-grained traits like coherence and argumentation, and (3) inability to handle multimodal contexts. In the era of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), we propose EssayJudge, the first multimodal benchmark to evaluate AES capabilities across lexical-, sentence-, and discourse-level traits. By leveraging MLLMs' strengths in trait-specific scoring and multimodal context understanding, EssayJudge aims to offer precise, context-rich evaluations without manual feature engineering, addressing longstanding AES limitations. Our experiments with 18 representative MLLMs reveal gaps in AES performance compared to human evaluation, particularly in discourse-level traits, highlighting the need for further advancements in MLLM-based AES research.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
PsyScore: A Psychometrically-Aware Framework for Trait-Adaptive Essay Scoring and ZPD-Scaffolded Feedback
PsyScore combines a Trait-Adaptive Neural IRT Scorer using GPCM with a ZPD-Scaffolded Feedback Generator to deliver both competitive scoring and pedagogically aligned feedback on the ASAP++ dataset.
-
Detecting Hope, Hate, and Emotion in Arabic Textual Speech and Multi-modal Memes Using Large Language Models
The submission cannot be reviewed as a coherent paper: its abstract and full text are two different papers, so the abstract's claims have no supporting body.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.