# Can Language Models Evaluate Human Written Text? Case Study on Korean Student Writing for Education

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.17022 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.17022/

## Key facts

- Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 16 of its 24 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Jul 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 16 of 16)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09675/) (2019)
- [The Curious Case of Neural Text Degeneration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09751/) (2019)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04475/) (2024)
- [ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07201/) (2023)
- [Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08491/) (2023)
- [Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01535/) (2024)
- [Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.18796/) (2024)
- [FLASK: Fine-grained Language Model Evaluation based on Alignment Skill Sets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.10928/) (2023)
- [Assisting in Writing Wikipedia-like Articles From Scratch with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14207/) (2024)
- [Prometheus-Vision: Vision-Language Model as a Judge for Fine-Grained Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06591/) (2024)
- [The BiGGen Bench: A Principled Benchmark for Fine-grained Evaluation of Language Models with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.05761/) (2024)
- [Detecting LLM-Generated Text in Computing Education: A Comparative Study for ChatGPT Cases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.07411/) (2023)
- [FactPICO: Factuality Evaluation for Plain Language Summarization of Medical Evidence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11456/) (2024)
- [LifeTox: Unveiling Implicit Toxicity in Life Advice](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09585/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [EduBench: A Comprehensive Benchmarking Dataset for Evaluating Large Language Models in Diverse Educational Scenarios](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.16160/) (2025)
- [From Answers to Questions: EQGBench for Evaluating LLMs' Educational Question Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.10005/) (2025)
- [Bringing Pedagogy into Focus: Evaluating Virtual Teaching Assistants' Question-Answering in Asynchronous Learning Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.17961/) (2025)
- [RegGuard: AI-Powered Retrieval-Enhanced Assistant for Pharmaceutical Regulatory Compliance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.17826/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language model (LLM)-based evaluation pipelines have demonstrated their capability to robustly evaluate machine-generated text. Extending this methodology to assess human-written text could significantly benefit educational settings by providing direct feedback to enhance writing skills, although this application is not straightforward. In this paper, we investigate whether LLMs can effectively assess human-written text for educational purposes. We collected 100 texts from 32 Korean students across 15 types of writing and employed GPT-4-Turbo to evaluate them using grammaticality, fluency, coherence, consistency, and relevance as criteria. Our analyses indicate that LLM evaluators can reliably assess grammaticality and fluency, as well as more objective types of writing, though they struggle with other criteria and types of writing. We publicly release our dataset and feedback.