"My Grade is Wrong!": A Contestable AI Framework for Interactive Feedback in Evaluating Student Essays
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Interactive feedback, where feedback flows in both directions between teacher and student, is more effective than traditional one-way feedback. However, it is often too time-consuming for widespread use in educational practice. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have potential for automating feedback, they struggle with reasoning and interaction in an interactive setting. This paper introduces CAELF, a Contestable AI Empowered LLM Framework for automating interactive feedback. CAELF allows students to query, challenge, and clarify their feedback by integrating a multi-agent system with computational argumentation. Essays are first assessed by multiple Teaching-Assistant Agents (TA Agents), and then a Teacher Agent aggregates the evaluations through formal reasoning to generate feedback and grades. Students can further engage with the feedback to refine their understanding. A case study on 500 critical thinking essays with user studies demonstrates that CAELF significantly improves interactive feedback, enhancing the reasoning and interaction capabilities of LLMs. This approach offers a promising solution to overcoming the time and resource barriers that have limited the adoption of interactive feedback in educational settings.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Sep 2024.
Builds on
11 of 41 references.
References · 11
- 2023Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debatecited by 1,784
- 2023Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debatecited by 1,011
- 2023ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debatecited by 742
- 2023MedAgents: Large Language Models as Collaborators for Zero-shot Medical Reasoningcited by 316
- 2023Can ChatGPT Defend its Belief in Truth? Evaluating LLM Reasoning via Debatecited by 94
- 2024Exploring LLM Prompting Strategies for Joint Essay Scoring and Feedback Generationcited by 63
- 2024Argumentative Large Language Models for Explainable and Contestable Claim Verificationcited by 36
- 2024A Chain-of-Thought Prompting Approach with LLMs for Evaluating Students' Formative Assessment Responses in Sciencecited by 31
- 2023Interactive Explanations by Conflict Resolution via Argumentative Exchangescited by 24
- 2023Assessing the Quality of Multiple-Choice Questions Using GPT-4 and Rule-Based Methodscited by 24
- 2024(Beyond) Reasonable Doubt: Challenges that Public Defenders Face in Scrutinizing AI in Courtcited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 4; 2026: 1.
5 papers.
- 2025LLM Agents for Education: Advances and Applicationscited by 59
- 2025SketchMind: A Multi-Agent Cognitive Framework for Assessing Student-Drawn Scientific Sketchescited by 3
- 2025RubiSCoT: A Framework for AI-Supported Academic Assessmentcited by 1
- 2025Rethinking AI Evaluation in Education: The TEACH-AI Framework and Benchmark for Generative AI Assistantscited by 0
- 2026Specialists or Generalists? Multi-Agent and Single-Agent LLMs for Essay Gradingcited by 0
- 2026Specialists or Generalists? Multi-Agent and Single-Agent LLMs for Essay Grading29 Jan 2026
- 2025Rethinking AI Evaluation in Education: The TEACH-AI Framework and Benchmark for Generative AI Assistants28 Nov 2025
- 2025RubiSCoT: A Framework for AI-Supported Academic Assessment20 Oct 2025
- 2025SketchMind: A Multi-Agent Cognitive Framework for Assessing Student-Drawn Scientific Sketches29 Jun 2025
- 2025LLM Agents for Education: Advances and Applications14 Mar 2025