Repository Feedback

Your feedback helps us improve the repository's content relevance and usability. Please share your thoughts to help us better serve researchers and practitioners.

Submit feedback

Submit a research study

Contribute to the repository:

Add a paper

RETUYT-INCO at BEA 2025 Shared Task: How Far Can Lightweight Models Go in AI-powered Tutor Evaluation?

Authors
Santiago G¬óngora,
Ignacio Sastre,
Santiago Robaina,
Ignacio Remersaro,
Luis Chiruzzo,
Aiala Ros‡
Date
Publisher
arXiv
In this paper, we present the RETUYT-INCO participation at the BEA 2025 shared task. Our participation was characterized by the decision of using relatively small models, with fewer than 1B parameters. This self-imposed restriction tries to represent the conditions in which many research labs or institutions are in the Global South, where computational power is not easily accessible due to its prohibitive cost. Even under this restrictive self-imposed setting, our models managed to stay competitive with the rest of teams that participated in the shared task. According to the $exact\ F_1$ scores published by the organizers, the performance gaps between our models and the winners were as follows: $6.46$ in Track 1; $10.24$ in Track 2; $7.85$ in Track 3; $9.56$ in Track 4; and $13.13$ in Track 5. Considering that the minimum difference with a winner team is $6.46$ points -- and the maximum difference is $13.13$ -- according to the $exact\ F_1$ score, we find that models with a size smaller than 1B parameters are competitive for these tasks, all of which can be run on computers with a low-budget GPU or even without a GPU.
Study at a glance
  • Question: How well can small, low-cost AI models evaluate AI-powered tutors?
  • Setting and data: BEA 2025 shared task across five tracks
  • Method: Evaluates AI models with fewer than one billion parameters across five competition tracks (shared task)
Why it matters

Many institutions in the Global South cannot easily access computational power due to its prohibitive cost. This raises the question of how far lightweight, relatively small models can go in AI-powered tutor evaluation.

Key findings
  • In an AI-powered tutor evaluation competition, lightweight models with fewer than one billion parameters performed competitively against larger competing systems.
  • Performance gaps between the small models and winning teams remained relatively narrow across five separate evaluation tasks.
  • These lightweight evaluation models successfully operate on low-budget computers or machines without specialized graphics processing hardware.

Summary drafted with AI from the paper’s abstract and may contain errors. See the full paper for details.

What is the application?
Who is the user?