Graph-enhanced reasoning networks for explainable robustness scoring in structured question evaluation

Olaniyan Deborah, Wario Ruth
{"title":"Graph-enhanced reasoning networks for explainable robustness scoring in structured question evaluation","authors":"Olaniyan Deborah,&nbsp;Wario Ruth","doi":"10.1007/s43674-026-00090-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Ensuring that examination questions are pedagogically sound and aligned with the curriculum remains a key challenge in automated assessment. Most existing approaches focus on answer correctness or surface-level textual similarity, overlooking whether questions genuinely reflect syllabus content, require appropriate reasoning, or maintain structural coherence. This study presents SyllabiQA-RSNet, a syllabus-driven framework for automatically evaluating exam question quality. The model combines DeBERTa—large contextual embeddings with graph attention-based syllabus reasoning, capturing dependencies across syllabus sections and multi-step logical connections between questions and course content. Robustness scoring is formulated as a multi-task problem, with the model simultaneously predicting answers, generating reasoning chains, and producing continuous robustness scores. Evaluation on the SyllabusQA benchmark, comprising 5078 question–answer pairs from 63 university syllabi across STEM and non-STEM fields, demonstrates that SyllabiQA-RSNet substantially outperforms baseline models. It achieved a Pearson correlation of 0.79 and Spearman correlation of 0.76 with reference robustness scores, compared to 0.64 for DeBERTa-only and 0.58 for RoBERTa, while reducing RMSE to 0.082. The framework also enhanced answer prediction, particularly for reasoning-intensive questions, improving Exact Match scores by up to 7.2 points and producing higher-quality reasoning chains (+ 8.3 BLEU-4, + 8.8 ROUGE-L). Ablation studies confirmed the necessity of both syllabus graph reasoning and explicit robustness supervision, with their removal causing up to an 11-point drop in robustness correlation. These results indicate that explicitly modeling syllabus structure is critical for reliable, interpretable assessment of question quality, offering insights beyond simple answer correctness and enabling automated evaluation that aligns closely with pedagogical objectives.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72089,"journal":{"name":"Advances in computational intelligence","volume":"6 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s43674-026-00090-8.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in computational intelligence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43674-026-00090-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ensuring that examination questions are pedagogically sound and aligned with the curriculum remains a key challenge in automated assessment. Most existing approaches focus on answer correctness or surface-level textual similarity, overlooking whether questions genuinely reflect syllabus content, require appropriate reasoning, or maintain structural coherence. This study presents SyllabiQA-RSNet, a syllabus-driven framework for automatically evaluating exam question quality. The model combines DeBERTa—large contextual embeddings with graph attention-based syllabus reasoning, capturing dependencies across syllabus sections and multi-step logical connections between questions and course content. Robustness scoring is formulated as a multi-task problem, with the model simultaneously predicting answers, generating reasoning chains, and producing continuous robustness scores. Evaluation on the SyllabusQA benchmark, comprising 5078 question–answer pairs from 63 university syllabi across STEM and non-STEM fields, demonstrates that SyllabiQA-RSNet substantially outperforms baseline models. It achieved a Pearson correlation of 0.79 and Spearman correlation of 0.76 with reference robustness scores, compared to 0.64 for DeBERTa-only and 0.58 for RoBERTa, while reducing RMSE to 0.082. The framework also enhanced answer prediction, particularly for reasoning-intensive questions, improving Exact Match scores by up to 7.2 points and producing higher-quality reasoning chains (+ 8.3 BLEU-4, + 8.8 ROUGE-L). Ablation studies confirmed the necessity of both syllabus graph reasoning and explicit robustness supervision, with their removal causing up to an 11-point drop in robustness correlation. These results indicate that explicitly modeling syllabus structure is critical for reliable, interpretable assessment of question quality, offering insights beyond simple answer correctness and enabling automated evaluation that aligns closely with pedagogical objectives.

结构化问题评估中可解释稳健性评分的图增强推理网络
确保考试问题在教学上合理,并与课程保持一致,仍然是自动化评估的一个关键挑战。大多数现有的方法都侧重于答案的正确性或表面上的文本相似性,而忽略了问题是否真正反映了教学大纲的内容,是否需要适当的推理,是否保持了结构的连贯性。本研究提出了一个教学大纲驱动的框架,用于自动评估考试问题的质量。该模型将DeBERTa-large上下文嵌入与基于注意力的图形教学大纲推理相结合,捕获教学大纲部分之间的依赖关系以及问题和课程内容之间的多步骤逻辑连接。稳健性评分被表述为一个多任务问题,模型同时预测答案,生成推理链,并产生连续的稳健性评分。对来自STEM和非STEM领域的63所大学教学大纲的5078对问题的评估表明,syllable - rsnet大大优于基线模型。与参考稳健性评分的Pearson相关性为0.79,Spearman相关性为0.76,而仅deberta的相关性为0.64,RoBERTa的相关性为0.58,同时将RMSE降低到0.082。该框架还增强了答案预测,特别是对于推理密集型问题,将精确匹配得分提高了7.2分,并产生了更高质量的推理链(+ 8.3 BLEU-4, + 8.8 ROUGE-L)。消融研究证实了教学大纲图推理和明确的稳健性监督的必要性,它们的移除导致稳健性相关性下降高达11点。这些结果表明,明确建模教学大纲结构对于可靠的、可解释的问题质量评估至关重要,提供了超越简单答案正确性的见解,并使自动化评估与教学目标紧密结合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书