ProofPaths, an AI agentic framework that combines rubric-based grading with individualized and interactive interviews, is introduced, an AI agentic framework that combines rubric-based grading with individualized and interactive interviews.
Abstract
Students can use large language models to complete assignments, but a correct solution does not establish whether they understand the reasoning behind it. Individualized interviews can probe that understanding but require recurring staff effort. We introduce ProofPaths, an AI agentic framework that combines rubric-based grading with individualized and interactive interviews. Multiple grading agents assess a submission against instructor guidance, exchange critiques, and revise their judgments. Their scores determine which review supplies the grade and feedback. An interview agent asks students to justify steps in their submission and uses their answers to guide follow-up questions. Each question is linked to a retrieved submission excerpt, so instructors can compare the student's explanation with the cited passage. The system tracks assessment progress and stores grading reviews and interview transcripts for each submission. Several deterministic tests of the assessment controllers check source handling, score aggregation, and limits on correction attempts. Instructors can inspect all reviews and transcripts and override grades within the assignment workflow.
Large language models (LLMs) raise new questions for instructors, among them how to integrate LLMs productively into coursework and what to evaluate in students'work when an LLM can produce much of it directly. LLM-guided homework assignments offer one answer. Instructors configure the LLM to guide students in ways tha...
E. Furfaro, Katherine Elizabeth Lovelace, Yu-Hang Zhang et al.· 0 citations
Automated grading systems increasingly score student work without explaining their scoring decisions. This opacity creates confusion for students and weakens trust among classroom teachers. This research examines how explainable artificial intelligence can make algorithmic grading transparent. The study aims to identif...
Jahongir Babaev· Uzbek Journal of Law and Dig...· 0 citations
When a coding agent can produce a program, its tests, and an explanation, the submission says little about what the student understands. My dissertation investigates how computing students can use AI while retaining the reasoning needed to learn programming. I take part in examining three practices: asking for tutoring...
Runlong Ye· Proceedings of the 26th Koli...· 0 citations
Writing question papers and marking descriptive answers remain the slowest, most subjective parts of examination. This review organises recent work on automating them into three themes: generating questions, scoring answers, and deciding how far automated scores can be trusted. Eight core studies on Bloom's-level quest...
Prof. Dr. Aniruddha Rumale, Dr. Sushma Zade, Ganes, Sushant Gholap, Atmanand Mashal, Kalynai Patil· International Journal of Adv...· 0 citations
Generative AI can create programming feedback at scale, but validating its alignment with instructors'pedagogical goals and strategies remains challenging. Instructors may struggle to fully specify validation criteria upfront, as these often emerge through inspecting concrete examples and revising misaligned feedback....
Xiaohang Tang, Rehema Abulikemu, Peng Gao et al.· 0 citations
Judgment models answer semantic questions by scoring a finite set of candidate outcomes. Can reusable programs turn these local decisions into powerful multistep reasoning? We introduce \method, a framework that jointly constructs judgment schemas and composition programs for frozen judgment models. A generative teache...