Seungju Kim

Kai Tzu-iunn Ong, Minseok Kang, Dongwook Choi et al.

Harness optimization enables automated agent creation by having an optimizer agent iteratively update the harness of target agents. Despite its success, current studies evaluate optimizers solely by observing target agents' performance gains. This indirect end-improvement evaluation neglects optimizers' actions at intermediate steps, which are often erroneous and hinder agent performance. Therefore, it is unclear whether harness optimization is driven by optimizers' informed update actions or simply trial-and-error. This necessitates direct evaluation of harness optimizers. However, evaluating harness optimizers directly is non-trivial and costly due to the lack of oracle harnesses. To address this, we present a simple, low-cost design to directly evaluate them, namely priority ranking. By asking harness optimizers to rank components (e.g., tools) in a given harness by their potential to improve/hinder agent performance when updated, our design quantifies optimizer ability at the step level without expensive rollouts or manual examination. More importantly, optimizers' ranking performance correlates with their ability to improve agents in actual multi-step harness optimization, establishing priority ranking as a reliable predictor of optimization ability. Priority ranking is enabled by Shor, a collection of 182 human-verified optimization scenarios spanning across domains, designs, and time stages. Codes and data can be found at https://github.com/k59118/Harness_Optimizer_Evaluation.

Seungju Kim, Meounggun Jo

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in Automated Essay Scoring (AES), but their zero-shot and few-shot performance often falls short compared to state-of-the-art models and human raters. However, fine-tuning LLMs for each specific task is impractical due to the variety of essay prompts and rubrics used in real-world educational contexts. This study proposes a novel approach combining LLMs and Comparative Judgment (CJ) for AES, using zero-shot prompting to choose between two essays. We demonstrate that a CJ method surpasses traditional rubric-based scoring in essay scoring using LLMs.

Hyoungwook Jin, Yoonsu Kim, Dongyun Jung et al.

Mathematics learning entails mastery of both content knowledge and cognitive processing of knowing, applying, and reasoning with it. Automated math assessment primarily has focused on grading students' exhibition of content knowledge by finding textual evidence, such as specific numbers, formulas, and statements. Recent advancements in problem-solving, image recognition, and reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) show promise for nuanced evaluation of students' cognitive skills. Diagnosing cognitive skills needs to infer students' thinking processes beyond textual evidence, which is an underexplored task in LLM-based automated assessment. In this work, we investigate how state-of-the-art LLMs diagnose students' cognitive skills in mathematics. We constructed MathCog, a novel benchmark dataset comprising 639 student responses to 110 expert-curated middle school math problems, each annotated with detailed teachers' diagnoses based on cognitive skill checklists. Using MathCog, we evaluated 16 closed and open LLMs of varying model sizes and vendors. Our evaluation reveals that even the state-of-the-art LLMs struggle with the task, all F1 scores below 0.5, and tend to exhibit strong false confidence for incorrect cases ($r_s=.617$). We also found that model size positively correlates with the diagnosis performance ($r_s=.771$). Finally, we discuss the implications of these findings, the overconfidence issue, and directions for improving automated cognitive skill diagnosis.