Papers › Improving the Validity of Automatically Generated Feedback via Reinforcement Learning

Improving the Validity of Automatically Generated Feedback via Reinforcement Learning

2 Mar 2024arXiv:2403.01304archive 2025-07-28

Alexander Scarlatos, Digory Smith, Simon Woodhead, Andrew Lan

Automatically generating feedback via large language models (LLMs) in intelligent tutoring systems and online learning platforms has the potential to improve the learning outcomes of many students. However, both feedback generation and evaluation are challenging: feedback content has to be valid especially in subjects like math, which requires models to understand the problem, the solution, and where the student's error lies. Feedback also has to be pedagogically valid to reflect effective tutoring strategies, such as explaining possible misconceptions and encouraging the student, among other desirable features. In this work, we address both problems of automatically generating and evaluating feedback while considering both correctness and alignment. First, we propose a rubric for evaluating math feedback and show that GPT-4 is able to effectively use it to annotate human-written and LLM-generated feedback. Second, we propose a framework for feedback generation that optimizes both correctness and alignment using reinforcement learning (RL). Specifically, we use GPT-4's annotations to create preferences over feedback pairs in an augmented dataset for training via direct preference optimization (DPO). We show that our methods significantly increase the correctness and alignment of generated feedback with Llama 2, an open-source LLM, qualitatively analyze our generation and evaluation systems using case studies, and outline several areas for future work.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. 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

13 samples harvested; 9 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 4 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 13 of the 13 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from umass-ml4ed/feedback-gen-dpo. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

1 archive task tag without a task page not shown.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

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