arXiv (All)
open access
LLM-as-a-judge validity is strongly task-dependent across physics assessment formats
As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly considered for automated assessment and feedback, understanding when LLM marking is valid is essential. We evaluate LLM-as-a-judge marking across four settings spanning three assessment formats - structured questions, written essays, and scientific pl
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Compound-QA: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Compound Questions#1037686
- What is the Role of Small Models in the LLM Era: A Survey#1049587
- LLM+P: Empowering Large Language Models with Optimal Planning Proficiency#16624
- TSBench: A physics-grounded benchmark for evaluating LLM understanding of chemical reaction mechanisms#985853
- Evaluating Large Language Model Performance on Open-Ended Questions: Answering and Marking Capabilities#1180066
Record · ID 1116232
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive