Human-in-the-Loop LLM Grading for Handwritten Mathematics Assessments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.13083v1
• Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 15:32:09 GMT
• Title: Human-in-the-Loop LLM Grading for Handwritten Mathematics Assessments
• Abstract summary: We present a scalable, end-to-end workflow for LLM-assisted grading of short, pen-and-paper assessments.<n>We deploy the system in two undergraduate mathematics courses using six low-stakes in-class tests.
• Score: 4.291185382337384
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Providing timely and individualised feedback on handwritten student work is highly beneficial for learning but difficult to achieve at scale. This challenge has become more pressing as generative AI undermines the reliability of take-home assessments, shifting emphasis toward supervised, in-class evaluation. We present a scalable, end-to-end workflow for LLM-assisted grading of short, pen-and-paper assessments. The workflow spans (1) constructing solution keys, (2) developing detailed rubric-style grading keys used to guide the LLM, and (3) a grading procedure that combines automated scanning and anonymisation, multi-pass LLM scoring, automated consistency checks, and mandatory human verification. We deploy the system in two undergraduate mathematics courses using six low-stakes in-class tests. Empirically, LLM assistance reduces grading time by approximately 23% while achieving agreement comparable to, and in several cases tighter than, fully manual grading. Occasional model errors occur but are effectively contained by the hybrid design. Overall, our results show that carefully embedded human-in-the-loop LLM grading can substantially reduce workload while maintaining fairness and accuracy.

Related papers

• Impacts of Histories and Models on LLM Grading: A Study in Advanced Software Engineering Courses [4.784713411748711]
  This paper proposes a human-aligned LLM-assisted grading workflow.<n>We evaluate two mainstream LLMs, Grok and GPT, in terms of grading consistency and alignment with human scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-07T01:31:23Z)
• Automated Grading of Handwritten Mathematics Using Vision-Capable LLMs [2.727845763576068]
  Vision-capable large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities.<n>We present an empirical evaluation of an LLM-based grader for handwritten mathematical work using instructor-defined rubrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T19:06:15Z)
• Reliable Annotations with Less Effort: Evaluating LLM-Human Collaboration in Search Clarifications [21.698669254520475]
  This study focuses on annotation for the search clarification task, leveraging a high-quality, multi-dimensional dataset.<n>We show that even state-of-the-art models struggle to replicate human-level performance in subjective or fine-grained evaluation tasks.<n>We propose a simple yet effective human-in-the-loop (HITL) workflow that uses confidence thresholds and inter-model disagreement to selectively involve human review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-01T08:04:58Z)
• On the effectiveness of LLMs for automatic grading of open-ended questions in Spanish [0.8224695424591679]
  This paper explores the performance of different LLMs and prompting techniques in automatically grading short-text answers to open-ended questions.<n>Results are notably sensitive to prompt styles, suggesting biases toward certain words or content in the prompt.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-23T13:43:27Z)
• LLM2: Let Large Language Models Harness System 2 Reasoning [65.89293674479907]
  Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited impressive capabilities across a myriad of tasks, yet they occasionally yield undesirable outputs.<n>We introduce LLM2, a novel framework that combines an LLM with a process-based verifier.<n>LLMs2 is responsible for generating plausible candidates, while the verifier provides timely process-based feedback to distinguish desirable and undesirable outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-29T06:32:36Z)
• A Little Help Goes a Long Way: Efficient LLM Training by Leveraging Small LMs [74.35290684163718]
  A primary challenge in large language model (LLM) development is their onerous pre-training cost. This paper explores a promising paradigm to improve LLM pre-training efficiency and quality by leveraging a small language model (SLM)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T14:31:52Z)
• Unveiling Scoring Processes: Dissecting the Differences between LLMs and Human Graders in Automatic Scoring [21.7782670140939]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong potential in performing automatic scoring for constructed response assessments.<n>While constructed responses graded by humans are usually based on given grading rubrics, the methods by which LLMs assign scores remain largely unclear.<n>This paper uncovers the grading rubrics that LLMs used to score students' written responses to science tasks and their alignment with human scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-04T22:26:20Z)
• AutoDetect: Towards a Unified Framework for Automated Weakness Detection in Large Language Models [95.09157454599605]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly powerful, but they still exhibit significant but subtle weaknesses.<n>Traditional benchmarking approaches cannot thoroughly pinpoint specific model deficiencies.<n>We introduce a unified framework, AutoDetect, to automatically expose weaknesses in LLMs across various tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T15:16:45Z)
• Human-AI Collaborative Essay Scoring: A Dual-Process Framework with LLMs [13.262711792955377]
  This study explores the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated essay scoring. We propose an open-source LLM-based AES system, inspired by the dual-process theory. We find that our system not only automates the grading process but also enhances the performance and efficiency of human graders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-12T07:50:10Z)
• Human-Instruction-Free LLM Self-Alignment with Limited Samples [64.69906311787055]
  We propose an algorithm that can self-align large language models (LLMs) iteratively without active human involvement. Unlike existing works, our algorithm relies on neither human-crafted instructions nor labeled rewards, significantly reducing human involvement. We show that our method can unlock the LLMs' self-generalization ability to perform alignment with near-zero human supervision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-06T14:00:12Z)
• TRACE: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Continual Learning in Large Language Models [52.734140807634624]
  Aligned large language models (LLMs) demonstrate exceptional capabilities in task-solving, following instructions, and ensuring safety. Existing continual learning benchmarks lack sufficient challenge for leading aligned LLMs. We introduce TRACE, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate continual learning in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T16:38:49Z)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.