Papers › WrAFT: a Modularized Automated Writing Evaluation System for Argumentative Essays
WrAFT: a Modularized Automated Writing Evaluation System for Argumentative Essays
Adnan Labib, Yixuan Huang, Jiahui Wu, John Maurice Gayed, Zheng Yuan, Qiao Wang
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
This study presents WrAFT, a Writing Assessment and Feedback Tool, that delivers both accurate and reliable scores and effective comprehensive feedback to argumentative essays. WrAFT adopts a modular design by dividing automated writing evaluation (AWE) tasks into scoring, surface-level feedback, and deep-level feedback. In building the system, various Large Language Models (LLMs) have been evaluated, including LLaMA-3.3-70B-Instruct, GPT-4o, and Claude 3.7, through both direct prompting and supervised fine-tuning approaches. A proprietary dataset of 480 TOEFL Independent Writing essays with official benchmark scores was utilized. Benchmark-based evaluation shows that WrAFT achieves state-of-the-art performance in scoring, with a quadratic weighted kappa (QWK) of 0.84 and a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.44 against official scores on a scale of 0-5. Human evaluation of system-generated feedback also reveals high approval ratings: 96.14 percent for surface-level feedback, 93.03 percent for deep-level macro feedback, and 94.69 percent for deep-level micro feedback. An interactive user interface has been developed for the system and is publicly available and free to use.
Code
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Syntology holds the repository link but has not harvested or run code from it.
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2607.14524, was issued in July 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections