T propose o address a no the vel challenge Agent-as-a-Judge of evaluating framew time-v ork. Our arying method and construct complex s answers, task-specific we judg answer of ten e a frontier g correctness ents based agentic and on a search source tree-structured systems attribution.

It also discusses evaluation metrics and the use of explanations to debug models and improve performance.

Scientific sketches (e.g., models) offer a powerful lens into students' conceptual understanding, yet AI-powered automated assessment of such free-form, visually diverse artifacts remains a critical challenge. Existing solutions often treat sketch evaluation as either an image classification task or monolithic vision-language models, which lack interpretability, pedagogical alignment, and adaptability across cognitive levels. To address these limitations, we present SKETCHMIND, a cognitively grounded, multi-agent framework for evaluating and improving studentdrawn scientific sketches. SKETCHMIND introduces Sketch Reasoning Graphs (SRGs), semantic graph representations that embed domain concepts and Bloom's taxonomy-based cognitive labels. The system comprises modular agents responsible for rubric parsing, sketch perception, cognitive alignment, and iterative feedback with sketch modification, enabling personalized and transparent evaluation. We evaluate SKETCHMIND on a curated dataset of 3,575 student-generated sketches across six science assessment items with different highest order of Bloom's level that require students to draw models to explain phenomena. Compared to baseline GPT-4o performance without SRG(average accuracy: 55.6%), and with bSRGintegration achieves 77.1% average accuracy (+21.4% average absolute gain).

Language models must be adapted to understand and follow user instructions. Reinforcement learning is widely used to facilitate this --typically using fixed criteria such as helpfulness and harmfulness. In our work, we instead propose using flexible, instruction-specific criteria as a means of broadening the impact that reinforcement learning can have in eliciting instruction following. We propose Reinforcement Learning from Checklist Feedback (RLCF). From instructions, we extract checklists and evaluate how well responses satisfy each item--using both AI judges and specialized verifier programs--then combine these scores to compute rewards for RL. We compare RLCF with other alignment methods on top of a strong instruction following model (Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct)

Why can't language models write well? I n a certain, strange way, generative AI peaked with OpenAI's GPT-2 seven years ago. Little known to anyone outside of tech circles, GPT-2 excelled at producing unexpected answers. "You could be like, 'Continue this story:,' and GPT-2 would be like, ','" Katy Gero, a poet and computer scientist who has been experimenting with language models since 2017, told me. "The models won't do that anymore." AI leaders boast about their models' superhuman technical abilities.

ORCID: 0000 -0003-2811-1194 Abstract --As design thinking education is growing in secondary and tertiary education, educators face a mounting challenge of evaluating creative artefacts that comprise visual and textual elements. Traditional, rubric-based methods of assessment are laborious, time-consuming, and inconsistent, due to their reliance on Teaching Assistants (TAs) in large, multi - section cohorts. This paper presents an exploratory study to investigate the reliability and perceived accuracy of AI -assisted assessment vis -à -vis TA-assisted assessment in evaluating student posters in design thinking education. Two activities were conducted with 33 Ministry of Education (MOE), Singapore school teachers, with the objective (1) to compare AI -generated scores with TA grading across three key dimensions: empathy and user understanding, identification of pain points and opportunities, and visual communication, and (2) to understand teacher preferences for AI-assigned, TA-assigned, and hybrid scores. Results showed low statistical agreement between instructor and AI scores for empathy and pain points, though slightly higher alignment for visual communication. Teachers generally preferred TA -assigned scores in six of ten samples. Qualitative feedback highlighted AI's potential for formative feedback, consistency, and student self -reflection, but raised concerns about its limitations in capturing contextual nuance and creative insight. The study underscores the need for hybrid assessment models that integrate computational efficiency with human insights . This research contributes to the evolving conversation around responsible AI adoption in creative disciplines, emphasizing the balance between automation and human judgment for scalable and pedagogically sound assessment practices. Design thinking is a human-centered approach to innovation that draws from the designer's toolkit to integrate the needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the requirements for business success. It is a non - linear, iterative process that teams use to understand users, challenge assumptions, redefine problems, and create innovative solutions to prototype and test.

The dynamic nature of interactions between students and GenAI, as well as their relationship to writing quality, remains underexplored. While most research has examined how general-purpose GenAI can support writing, fewer studies have investigated how students interact with pedagogically designed systems across different phases of the writing process. To address this gap, we evaluated a GenAI-driven essay-writing assistant (EWA) designed to support higher education students in argumentative writing. Drawing on 1,282 interaction logs from 32 undergraduates during a two-hour writing session, Sequential Pattern Mining and K-Means clustering were used to identify behavioral patterns. Two clusters emerged: Cluster 1 emphasized outline planning and essay structure, while Cluster 2 focused on content development. A Mann-Whitney U test revealed a moderate effect size (r = 0.36) in the essay Organization dimension, with Cluster 1 showing higher scores. Qualitative analysis indicated that students with better performance actively wrote and shared essay sections with EWA for feedback, rather than interacted passively by asking questions. These findings suggest implications for teaching and system design. Teachers can encourage active engagement, while future EWAs may integrate automatic labeling and monitoring to prompt students to move from questioning to writing, enabling fuller benefits from GenAI-supported learning.