The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Performance evaluation of automated scoring for the descriptive similarity response task
Abstract
We examined whether a machine-learning-based automated scoring system can mimic the human similarity task performance. We trained a bidirectional encoder representations from transformer-model based on the semantic similarity test (SST), which presented participants with a word pair and asked them to write about how the two concepts were similar. In Experiment 1, based on the fivefold cross validation, we showed the model trained on the combination of the responses ( N = 1600) and classification criteria (which is the rubric of the SST; N = 616) scored the correct labels with 83% accuracy. In Experiment 2, using the test data obtained from different participants in different timing from Experiment 1, we showed the models trained on the responses alone and the combination of responses and classification criteria scored the correct labels in 80% accuracy. In addition, human–model scoring showed inter-rater reliability of 0.63, which was almost the same as that of human–human scoring (0.67 to 0.72). These results suggest that the machine learning model can reach human-level performance in scoring the Japanese version of the SST.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Although the visual system of humans, with expert knowledge, can interpret and provide relative BFI abundance in SEM images from wound-edge tissue,26 such assessments are primarily subjective, time-intensive, limited by the availability of expert raters, and prone to interobserver variability.27-30”
From SEMTWIST Quantification of Biofilm Infection in Human Chronic Wound Using Scanning Electron Microscopy and Machine Learning (2025) · cites this paper as [28]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 30
- Carroll, J. B. Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor Analytic Studies (Cambridge University Press, 1993). · DOI · Paper page
- Ackerman, P. L., Beier, M. E. & Bowen, K. R. Explorations of crystallized intelligence: Completion tests, cloze tests, and knowledge. Learn. Individ. Differ. 12(1), 105–121 (2000). · DOI
- Bruntsch, R. & Ruch, W. Studying irony detection beyond ironic criticism: Let’s include ironic praise. Front. Psychol. 8, 606 (2017). · DOI
- McDonough, I. M. et al. Discrepancies between fluid and crystallized ability in healthy adults: A behavioral marker of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Neurobiol. Aging 46, 68–75 (2016). · DOI
- Finke, R. A. Creative Imagery: Discoveries and Inventions in Visualization (Psychology press, 1990).
- Sligh, A. C., Conners, F. A. & Roskos-Ewoldsen, B. E. V. E. R. L. Y. Relation of creativity to fluid and crystallized intelligence. J. Creat. Behav. 39(2), 123–136 (2005). · DOI
- Postlethwaite, B. E. Fluid ability, crystallized ability, and performance across multiple domains: A meta-analysis. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Iowa (2011).
- Schmidt, F. L. A general theoretical integrative model of individual differences in interests, abilities, personality traits, and academic and occupational achievement: A commentary on four recent articles. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 9(2), 211–218 (2014). · DOI
- Riordan, B., Horbach, A., Cahill, A., Zesch, T., & Lee, C. Investigating neural architectures for short answer scoring. In Proc. of the 12th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, pp. 159–168 (2017). · DOI
- Dzikovska, M. O., Nielsen, R., & Brew, C. Towards effective tutorial feedback for explanation questions: A dataset and baselines. In Proc. of the 2012 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pp. 200–210 (2012).
- Mizumoto, T. et al. Analytic score prediction and justification identification in automated short answer scoring. In Proc. of the Fourteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, pp. 316–325 (2019). · DOI
- Sakaguchi, K., Heilman, M., & Madnani, N. Effective feature integration for automated short answer scoring. In Proc. of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pp. 1049–1054 (2015). · DOI
- Devlin, J., Chang, M. W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proc. of NAACL-HLT, pp. 4171–4186 (2019).
- Vaswani, A. et al. Attention is all you need. In Proc. of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 6000– 6010 (2017).
- Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. Preprint at https://arXiv.org/arXiv:1301.3781 (2013).
- van Overschelde, J. P., Rawson, K. A. & Dunlosky, J. Category norms: An updated and expanded version of the Battig and Montague (1969) norms. J. Mem. Lang. 50(3), 289–335 (2004). · DOI
- McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S. & McNorgan, C. Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behav. Res. Methods 37(4), 547–559 (2005). · DOI
- Bhatia, S. & Richie, R. Transformer networks of human conceptual knowledge. Psychol. Rev. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/hs4ra (2021). · DOI
- Whitten, W. B. II., Suter, W. N. & Frank, M. L. Bidirectional synonym ratings of 464 noun pairs. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 18(1), 109–127 (1979). · DOI
- Hill, F., Reichart, R. & Korhonen, A. SimLex-999: Evaluating semantic models with (genuine) similarity estimation. Comput. Linguist. 41(4), 665–695 (2015). · DOI
- Richie, R. & Bhatia, S. Similarity judgment within and across categories: A comprehensive model comparison. Cogn. Sci. 45, 1–48 (2021). · DOI
- Oka, R., Utsumi, A., & Kusumi, T. (under review). Validity and the reliability of the Japanese version of the Semantic Similarity Test.
- Stamenković, D., Ichien, N. & Holyoak, K. J. Metaphor comprehension: An individual-differences approach. J. Mem. Lang. 105, 108–118 (2019). · DOI
- Fujita, S. & Kobayashi, T. A large scale web-based study of Japanese vocabulary size estimation test: Based on word familiarity database Reiwa edition. In The 36th Annual Conference of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence, pp. 4N1GS303–4N1GS303 (2022).
- Anantaprayoon, P., Kaneko, M., & Okazaki, N. Evaluating gender bias of pre-trained language models in natural language inference by considering all labels. Preprint at https://arXiv.org/arXiv:2309.09697 (2023).
- Kudo, T., Yamamoto, K., & Matsumoto, Y. Applying conditional random fields to Japanese morphological analysis. In Proc. of the 2004 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pp. 230–237 (2004).
- Takaoka, K., Hisamoto, S., Kawahara, N., Sakamoto, M., Uchida, Y., & Matsumoto, Y. Sudachi: A Japanese tokenizer for business. In Proc. of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, pp. 2246–2249 (2018).
- Floridi, L. & Chiriatti, M. GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds Mach 30(4), 681–694 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
- Zhong, Q., Ding, L., Liu, J., Du, B., & Tao, D. Can chatgpt understand too? A comparative study on chatgpt and fine-tuned bert. Preprint at https://arXiv.org/arXiv:2302.10198 (2023).
- Cer, D., Diab, M., Agirre, E. E., Lopez-Gazpio, I., & Specia, L. SemEval-2017 Task 1: Semantic textual similarity multilingual and cross-lingual focused evaluation. In The 11th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation, pp. 1–14 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Singh, S., Muniz De Oliveira, F., Wang, C., Kumar, M., Xuan, Y., DeMazumder, D., Sen, C. K., & Roy, S. (2025) · Advances in Wound Care · doi:10.1089/wound.2024.0291 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Oka, R., Kusumi, T., & Utsumi, A.
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2024-03-14
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2045-2322
- PMC
- PMC10940673
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
- Funders
- Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (19K12121)
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
