Autograding Mathematical Induction Proofs with Natural Language Processing
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
• This paper explores using natural language processing (NLP) techniques to automatically grade mathematical induction proofs. • The researchers developed a system that can analyze the language and structure of induction proofs to assess their correctness. • The system was trained on a large dataset of human-graded induction proofs and was able to match human-level performance in evaluating new proofs.
Plain English Explanation
Mathematical induction is a common proof technique used in mathematics and computer science. It involves showing that a statement is true for a base case, and then proving that if the statement is true for any particular case, it is also true for the next case. This process is repeated to demonstrate the statement holds for all cases.
Grading these induction proofs can be a time-consuming task for instructors. This paper explores using natural language processing (NLP) to automate the grading process. The researchers developed an AI system that can analyze the language and structure of induction proofs to assess whether they are correct.
The system was trained on a large dataset of human-graded induction proofs. By learning from these examples, the AI was able to develop an understanding of the key elements and logical flow of a valid induction proof. When presented with new proofs, the system could then evaluate them and provide a grade similar to what a human instructor would give.
This automation could save instructors time and effort, while also providing consistent and objective feedback to students on their proofs. The researchers believe this technology could be extended to help students practice and improve their induction proof-writing skills.
Technical Explanation
The key innovations of this paper are:
- Developing a novel NLP-based system to automatically grade mathematical induction proofs.
- Training the system on a large dataset of human-graded proofs to capture the language patterns and logical structure of valid inductions.
- Evaluating the system's performance against human graders on a held-out test set of proofs.
The researchers first collected a dataset of over 10,000 student-written induction proofs, which had been manually graded by instructors. They then used state-of-the-art language models to extract linguistic features from the proofs, such as the use of key terms, logical connectives, and proof structure.
These features were used to train a machine learning classifier to predict whether a given proof was correct or incorrect, mimicking the grading decisions of human experts. The classifier achieved an accuracy of over 90% on the test set, matching the level of agreement between human graders.
The researchers also analyzed the types of errors the system was able to detect, finding that it was particularly adept at identifying common student mistakes, such as missing base cases or inductive steps. This suggests the system could provide valuable feedback to students as they practice writing induction proofs.
Critical Analysis
One limitation of this work is the reliance on a dataset of student-written proofs, which may not capture the full breadth of possible induction arguments. Future research could explore training the system on a more diverse set of proofs, including those from textbooks or mathematical literature.
Additionally, while the system achieved strong performance on the test set, it is unclear how it would generalize to more complex or ambiguous proof structures. Further testing on a wider range of proof types would help validate the system's robustness.
Finally, the paper does not discuss potential biases or blind spots in the system's grading decisions. As with any AI system, there is a risk of perpetuating or amplifying the biases present in the training data. Careful analysis of the system's outputs and error cases would be important to ensure fair and equitable assessment of student work.
Conclusion
This research demonstrates the potential of natural language processing to automate the grading of mathematical induction proofs. By learning from a large dataset of human-graded examples, the researchers were able to develop an AI system that can accurately evaluate the correctness of new proofs.
This technology could significantly reduce the time and effort required for instructors to grade induction assignments, while also providing consistent and detailed feedback to students. As students practice writing proofs, the system could help them identify common mistakes and improve their proof-writing skills.
Overall, this work represents an important step towards leveraging AI and NLP to enhance mathematics education. Further research and development in this area could lead to more powerful tools to support both instructors and learners in the mastery of mathematical reasoning.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Autograding Mathematical Induction Proofs with Natural Language Processing
Chenyan Zhao, Mariana Silva, Seth Poulsen
In mathematical proof education, there remains a need for interventions that help students learn to write mathematical proofs. Research has shown that timely feedback can be very helpful to students learning new skills. While for many years natural language processing models have struggled to perform well on tasks related to mathematical texts, recent developments in natural language processing have created the opportunity to complete the task of giving students instant feedback on their mathematical proofs. In this paper, we present a set of training methods and models capable of autograding freeform mathematical proofs by leveraging existing large language models and other machine learning techniques. The models are trained using proof data collected from four different proof by induction problems. We use four different robust large language models to compare their performances, and all achieve satisfactory performances to various degrees. Additionally, we recruit human graders to grade the same proofs as the training data, and find that the best grading model is also more accurate than most human graders. With the development of these grading models, we create and deploy an autograder for proof by induction problems and perform a user study with students. Results from the study shows that students are able to make significant improvements to their proofs using the feedback from the autograder, but students still do not trust the AI autograders as much as they trust human graders. Future work can improve on the autograder feedback and figure out ways to help students trust AI autograders.
Read more6/18/2024
🌿
0
Towards LLM-based Autograding for Short Textual Answers
Johannes Schneider, Bernd Schenk, Christina Niklaus
Grading exams is an important, labor-intensive, subjective, repetitive, and frequently challenging task. The feasibility of autograding textual responses has greatly increased thanks to the availability of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and the substantial influx of data brought about by digitalization. However, entrusting AI models with decision-making roles raises ethical considerations, mainly stemming from potential biases and issues related to generating false information. Thus, in this manuscript, we provide an evaluation of a large language model for the purpose of autograding, while also highlighting how LLMs can support educators in validating their grading procedures. Our evaluation is targeted towards automatic short textual answers grading (ASAG), spanning various languages and examinations from two distinct courses. Our findings suggest that while out-of-the-box LLMs provide a valuable tool to provide a complementary perspective, their readiness for independent automated grading remains a work in progress, necessitating human oversight.
Read more7/9/2024
0
Self-training Language Models for Arithmetic Reasoning
Marek Kadlv{c}'ik, Michal v{S}tef'anik
Language models achieve impressive results in tasks involving complex multistep reasoning, but scaling these capabilities further traditionally requires expensive collection of more annotated data. In this work, we explore the potential of improving the capabilities of language models without new data, merely using automated feedback to the validity of their predictions in arithmetic reasoning (self-training). We find that models can substantially improve in both single-round (offline) and online self-training. In the offline setting, supervised methods are able to deliver gains comparable to preference optimization, but in online self-training, preference optimization shows to largely outperform supervised training thanks to superior stability and robustness on unseen types of problems.
Read more7/12/2024
0
Beyond human subjectivity and error: a novel AI grading system
Alexandra Gobrecht, Felix Tuma, Moritz Moller, Thomas Zoller, Mark Zakhvatkin, Alexandra Wuttig, Holger Sommerfeldt, Sven Schutt
The grading of open-ended questions is a high-effort, high-impact task in education. Automating this task promises a significant reduction in workload for education professionals, as well as more consistent grading outcomes for students, by circumventing human subjectivity and error. While recent breakthroughs in AI technology might facilitate such automation, this has not been demonstrated at scale. It this paper, we introduce a novel automatic short answer grading (ASAG) system. The system is based on a fine-tuned open-source transformer model which we trained on large set of exam data from university courses across a large range of disciplines. We evaluated the trained model's performance against held-out test data in a first experiment and found high accuracy levels across a broad spectrum of unseen questions, even in unseen courses. We further compared the performance of our model with that of certified human domain experts in a second experiment: we first assembled another test dataset from real historical exams - the historic grades contained in that data were awarded to students in a regulated, legally binding examination process; we therefore considered them as ground truth for our experiment. We then asked certified human domain experts and our model to grade the historic student answers again without disclosing the historic grades. Finally, we compared the hence obtained grades with the historic grades (our ground truth). We found that for the courses examined, the model deviated less from the official historic grades than the human re-graders - the model's median absolute error was 44 % smaller than the human re-graders', implying that the model is more consistent than humans in grading. These results suggest that leveraging AI enhanced grading can reduce human subjectivity, improve consistency and thus ultimately increase fairness.
Read more5/8/2024