Automated Content Evaluation with Hierarchical Grading Models

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing machine learning models for grading are large and cumbersome, requiring large datasets for training and are not customizable to individual grader preferences, leading to reduced accuracy with small data sets and an inability to handle unique or customized grading criteria.

Innovation Solution

Customizable machine learning models are trained using pre-existing data and iterative user feedback to adapt to specific grading preferences, allowing for efficient grading of custom prompts and small data sets.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Extent of automation

If existing machine learning models for grading are used, then grading can be automated, but the models are large and cumbersome requiring large datasets for training

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveautomated gradingVSAvoiddataset size
Core Design Contradiction:
Extent of automationVSQuantity of substance

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the grading task into multiple hierarchical levels: topic-level grading, step-level grading, and component-level grading. This segmentation allows the system to process and evaluate different aspects of student responses independently, reducing the overall data requirements compared to holistic grading approaches.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically adapts the grading granularity based on the specific content and requirements of each grading task. It can switch between evaluating entire responses, intermediate steps, or specific components depending on what is most appropriate for the given context, optimizing performance with limited data.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

2Measurement precision

If existing machine learning models for grading are used, then grading can be automated, but they require large datasets for training leading to reduced accuracy with small data sets

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvegrading accuracyVSAvoiddataset size
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSQuantity of substance

Solution Approach 1:

By breaking down grading into hierarchical levels (topic, step, component), the system can achieve high accuracy on small datasets by focusing evaluation on specific aspects rather than requiring comprehensive training data for entire responses.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs partial evaluation by assessing only the necessary components of a response rather than requiring complete response analysis, enabling accurate grading with limited training data by focusing computational resources on critical evaluation points.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

3Extent of automation

If existing machine learning models for grading are used, then grading can be automated, but they are not customizable to individual grader preferences

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveautomated gradingVSAvoidcustomizability
Core Design Contradiction:
Extent of automationVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically configures grading behavior based on user-defined preferences and requirements. It adapts the granularity level, evaluation criteria, and focus areas according to individual grader needs, making the automated grading process customizable without sacrificing automation benefits.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system allows modification of grading parameters such as evaluation granularity, weightings for different components, and criteria thresholds. These parameter changes enable customization to individual grader preferences while maintaining the automated grading framework.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

4Extent of automation

If existing machine learning models for grading are used, then grading can be automated, but they cannot handle unique or customized grading criteria

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveautomated gradingVSAvoidhandling customized criteria
Core Design Contradiction:
Extent of automationVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The hierarchical segmentation of grading into topic, step, and component levels provides a flexible framework that can accommodate unique and customized grading criteria by allowing different evaluation standards at each level according to specific requirements.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system enables customization of grading criteria through parameter adjustments at various hierarchical levels, allowing unique evaluation standards to be implemented while maintaining automated processing of grading tasks.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentEP3759682B1Systems and methods for automated content evaluation and delivery
Publication Date: 2025.12.03 PEARSON EDUCATION INC
  • EP3759682B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3759682B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP3759682B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

Systems and methods for automated content delivery and evaluation are disclosed herein. The system can include a memory. The memory can include a content library database including a plurality of problems and data for stepwise evaluation of each of the plurality of problems. The system can include at least one server. The at least one server can automatically decompose a content item into a plurality of potential steps and associate attributes with the potential steps. The at least one server can receive a response from a user for the content item, identify steps in the received response, and select a next action based the identified steps of the received response.