Evaluation Services in Semantic Kernel

[AdamSobieski]

Hello. I am interested in LLM-as-judge and LLMs-as-jury techniques for the automated evaluation of responses to users' questions and of other educational explanations, these evaluations making use of multiple criteria.

Also interesting are uses of LLM agents and multi-agent systems to evaluate steps of expressed reasoning from AI systems.

I'm wondering whether these kinds of evaluation services, e.g., projects like https://github.com/microsoft/llm-as-judge, could become core service types in Semantic Kernel? For example, something like: IChatEvaluationService. Thank you!

A Practical Guide for Evaluating Educational Explanations.

The following information is from a dialogue with an AI assistant about evaluating educational explanations.

1. Clarify the Purpose of the Explanation

Criteria	Why it matters	How to check
Learning goals	Sets the "end-state" for all other judgments	Do the stated or implied objectives match the content?
Instructional context	Determines whether the explanation is a standalone resource, a lecture slide, or part of a module	Is the depth and breadth appropriate for its place in the curriculum?
Audience profile	Affects language, examples, and pace	Are prerequisites, age, discipline, or cultural factors considered?

---

2. Assess Content Integrity

Criterion	What to look for	Quick test
Accuracy	Factual correctness, up-to-date references	Spot-check at least three key claims against reputable sources
Completeness	All essential elements are covered, no major gaps	List the core concepts the topic usually requires; see if they appear
Logical structure	Argument flows, premises lead to conclusions	Map the logic (e.g., flow-chart or "p-h-c" - premise-hypothesis-conclusion)
Relevance	Avoids digressions that distract from objectives	Are all digressions explicitly tied back to the goals?

---

3. Evaluate Pedagogical Quality

Pedagogical Feature	Why it matters	How to examine
Scaffolding	Builds on prior knowledge	Is there a brief recap or link to prerequisite concepts?
Worked examples	Shows step-by-step reasoning	Do examples include intermediate steps, not just the final answer?
Analogies & metaphors	Facilitates transfer of knowledge	Are analogies clear, non-confusing, and directly mapped to the target concept?
Counterexamples	Reveals misconceptions	Are common misunderstandings addressed and corrected?
Chunking	Manages cognitive load	Are distinct ideas broken into small, digestible units?
Assessment hooks	Allows instant feedback	Are there quick "mini-quizzes" or reflection points embedded?

Tip: Use Cognitive Load Theory as a lens-check that the explanation balances intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load.

---

4. Judge Clarity & Communicative Effectiveness

Indicator	Check
Language	Use of precise terminology, minimal jargon (or defined terms)
Organization	Headings, bullet points, visual cues
Visuals	Diagrams, tables, or illustrations
Examples & case-studies	Anchor abstract ideas
Narrative flow	Story-like progression

---

5. Test Learner Engagement & Transfer

Metric	How to collect	Interpretation
Immediate feedback	Post-explanation quiz or reflection prompt	High scores or positive comments suggest clarity
Retention	Delayed recall test	Consistent recall indicates mastery
Transfer	Application of concept in new contexts	Ability to solve novel problems signals depth
Learner metacognition	Self-assessed confidence	Over-confidence or under-confidence flags gaps

---

6. Make it Iterative and Empirical

1. Gather expert review - Two subject-matter experts rate each criterion on a 5-point scale.
2. Collect learner data - Use LMS analytics or controlled experiments.
3. Create a weighted rubric - Assign importance scores to each criterion based on context.
4. Score and aggregate - Convert to an overall evaluation score.
5. Refine - Address the lowest-scoring aspects first; iterate.

---

7. A Sample Rubric (Simplified)

Dimension	Low (1-2)	Medium (3-4)	High (5-6)
Learning Goals	Not aligned	Partially aligned	Fully aligned
Accuracy	Errors present	Mostly correct	Exactly correct
Pedagogical Strategies	None	Basic strategies	Advanced scaffolding
Clarity	Confusing, jargon	Some issues	Clear, concise
Engagement	No hooks	Some interest	High learner motivation
Assessment	None	Minimal	Integrated, varied

• Score each dimension (1-6), sum, and compare against established thresholds.

---

8. Practical Checklist for Quick Evaluation

1. Does the explanation state (or imply) clear learning objectives?
2. Is every claim factually accurate?
3. Are key prerequisite concepts revisited or linked?
4. Are analogies/metaphors used appropriately?
5. Is the text organized with headings, bullet points, or visuals?
6. Do examples walk through steps in detail?
7. Are common misconceptions addressed?
8. Is there an embedded quiz or reflection point?
9. Did pilot learners demonstrate concept understanding?
10. Did expert reviewers rate above 4 on critical criteria?

---

9. Bottom-Line Takeaway

Evaluating an educational explanation is a multi-dimensional exercise. Think of it as a diagnostic scan: you systematically check for alignment with goals, fidelity of content, pedagogical strategies, clarity, and learner evidence. A structured rubric turns subjective impressions into transparent, actionable feedback, enabling continuous improvement of learning materials.

[justinbarias]

have a look at this https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/ai/conceptual/evaluation-libraries