大语言模型自动评分Linux/bash考试:四级认知分类方法

Automated grading of Linux/bash examinations using large language models: a four-level cognitive taxonomy approach

精选理由

想用AI批改Linux命令作业?试试Gemini 3.0 Pro加评分rubric,人机一致性高达0.888。

AI 摘要

该研究评估了GPT、Claude Opus、Gemini和GLM四个大语言模型在短Linux/bash命令回答评分中的表现。采用四级认知分类(L1信息检索至L4高级系统管理),在1200个真实学生回答上与三位专家评分对比。Gemini 3.0 Pro配合rubric引导提示达到最高一致性(ICC(3,1)=0.888,MAE=0.10)。一致性随认知层级上升而下降,提示质量比模型选择影响更大。该框架可确定哪些问题适合AI辅助评分。

原文 · arXiv cs.AI

Automated grading of Linux/bash examinations using large language models: a four-level cognitive taxonomy approach

Scalable and reliable grading of command-line examinations remains a challenge in computing education, where rising enrolments make manual marking difficult and rule-based autograders cannot handle partial credit, equivalent solutions, or syntactic variation. This paper evaluates whether four frontier Large Language Models (GPT, Claude Opus, Gemini, and GLM) can approximate expert judgment when grading short Linux/bash command responses. The study adopts a four-level cognitive taxonomy that combines cognitive complexity and operational impact, ranging from information retrieval (L1) and basic file manipulation (L2) to structural operations (L3) and advanced system management (L4). The models were tested with two prompt variants, a minimal baseline and a rubric-enhanced version, on 1200 real responses from second-year Computer Engineering students independently graded by three expert instructors. Gemini~3.0 Pro with rubric-guided prompting achieved the highest human-AI agreement (ICC(3,1) = 0.888, MAE = 0.10, Bland-Altman bias = -0.014). Agreement declined consistently as taxonomy level increased, with the largest discrepancies at higher levels. Across all models, rubric quality had a larger effect than provider choice, with structured prompts consistently improving agreement. These results show that question complexity is a reliable predictor of the difficulty LLMs face in grading accurately, and they establish a principled, taxonomy-based framework for determining which questions are suitable for AI-assisted grading and which require human review, while also providing a transferable evaluation protocol and prompt templates.