TeachMateGPT: A Multi-Agent Knowledge-Grounded Framework for Pedagogical Assessment Generation from Science Curriculum Materials

Automatically generating textbook-grounded assessment items can reduce science teachers' workload, but existing retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems rely on flat retrieval, support only single-question generation, lack safeguards against weak evidence, and are ill-suited to low-resource, board-exam-structured curricula. We address these limitations with TeachMateGPT, a multi-agent system contributing four advances to curriculum-grounded science-assessment authoring. (i) COPE, a hierarchical knowledge base replacing token-window chunking with a multi-resolution index that segments documents along syllabus structure and links them at three granularities via a traversable graph-based lineage, matching evidence to each topic's instructional level. (ii) A staged, fail-closed agent pipeline replacing one-shot retrieve-then-generate: routing gates search, retrieval fuses dense and lexical evidence under a coverage gate that withholds generation on insufficient evidence, and specialist agents draft objective and constructed-response items. (iii) SAVER, a source-attributed verification protocol scoring faithfulness, relevance, and hallucination risk against retrieved evidence, applying stricter grounding checks across each creative question's four sub-parts, paired with teacher-in-the-loop evaluation rather than automatic filtering. (iv) NCTB-SciGen8, a curriculum-grounded dataset of 198 items (143 multiple-choice, 55 creative questions) spanning all 14 chapters of the NCTB Class 8 science textbook, produced by the pipeline and rated by three practicing teachers. TeachMateGPT raises faithfulness (0.68 $\rightarrow$ 0.96) and answer relevancy (0.60 $\rightarrow$ 0.89) over a vanilla RAG baseline.

LLM-as-Judge in Education: A Curriculum-Grounded Marking Pipeline

Generative AI and large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to question generation and automated assessment. However, deploying LLMs in preparation for high-stakes exams requires more than prompt engineering; it demands software pipelines that systematically ground model outputs in authorised curriculum artefacts and marking guidelines issued by education authorities. This paper presents a curriculum-grounded, configurable LLM-as-Judge pipeline for question-level marking, co-developed with an industrial partner, to support exam preparation for university admission. The pipeline identifies the relevant topics, subtopics, and cognitive demand of a question, and assembles verifiable and authorised context to support LLM judgement. Curriculum intent is operationalised through concrete syllabus artefacts, including prescribed verbs and outcomes, performance band descriptors, glossary definitions, and marking-guideline principles. A staged LLM workflow is employed to first generate question-specific rubrics, capturing structured expectations of performance, and then derive and evaluate marking criteria used to allocate marks to student responses. This design improves consistency, transparency, and alignment with official marking practices. Preliminary evaluation shows that the proposed LLM-as-Judge pipeline delivers marking outcomes comparable to human tutors, while yielding justifications that are more traceable to authorised curriculum artefacts and marking standards. The pipeline has also been integrated into an online study platform, where early deployment data provide initial insights into operational usage and manual overrides.