mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Evaluating Students' Open-ended Written Responses with LLMs: Using the RAG Framework for GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Claude-3, and Mistral-Large

arXiv 2405.05444 ↗First posted 8 May 2024cs.CL cs.AIcited by 6

On the map: Retrieval-augmented generation → RAG pipeline design and evaluation

Abstract (arXiv)

Evaluating open-ended written examination responses from students is an essential yet time-intensive task for educators, requiring a high degree of effort, consistency, and precision. Recent developments in Large Language Models (LLMs) present a promising opportunity to balance the need for thorough evaluation with efficient use of educators' time. In our study, we explore the effectiveness of LLMs ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Claude-3, and Mistral-Large in assessing university students' open-ended answers to questions made about reference material they have studied. Each model was instructed to evaluate 54 answers repeatedly under two conditions: 10 times (10-shot) with a temperature setting of 0.0 and 10 times with a temperature of 0.5, expecting a total of 1,080 evaluations per model and 4,320 evaluations across all models. The RAG (Retrieval Augmented Generation) framework was used as the framework to make the LLMs to process the evaluation of the answers. As of spring 2024, our analysis revealed notable variations in consistency and the grading outcomes provided by studied LLMs. There is a need to comprehend strengths and weaknesses of LLMs in educational settings for evaluating open-ended written responses. Further comparative research is essential to determine the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of using LLMs for educational assessments.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in RAG pipeline design and evaluation, one of 15 directions in Retrieval-augmented generation. Builds on 6 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 May 2024.

Builds on

6 of 23 references.

References · 6

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
  3. 2014Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translatecited by 4,548
  4. 2023Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Studycited by 422
  5. 2023Applying Large Language Models and Chain-of-Thought for Automatic Scoringcited by 69
  6. 2023Assessing Student Errors in Experimentation Using Artificial Intelligence and Large Language Models: A Comparative Study with Human Raterscited by 16

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 3; 2026: 2.

6 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Analysis of instruction-based LLMs' capabilities to score and judge text-input problems in an academic setting
  2. 2023Establishing Performance Baselines in Fine-Tuning, Retrieval-Augmented Generation and Soft-Prompting for Non-Specialist LLM Users
  3. 2024Automated Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Language Models with Task-Specific Exam Generation
  4. 2025SteLLA: A Structured Grading System Using LLMs with RAG
  5. 2025Aligning LLMs for the Classroom with Knowledge-Based Retrieval -- A Comparative RAG Study
  6. 2023Automated Assessment of Students' Code Comprehension using LLMs
  7. 2025Comparing the Performance of LLMs in RAG-based Question-Answering: A Case Study in Computer Science Literature
  8. 2024Evaluating ChatGPT on Nuclear Domain-Specific Data