Vision-Language Models for Criterion-Level Grading of Handwritten Examinations in Outcome-Based Education

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.14284v2
• Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2026 06:18:07 GMT
• Title: Vision-Language Models for Criterion-Level Grading of Handwritten Examinations in Outcome-Based Education
• Abstract summary: This study evaluates vision-language models for handwritten outcome-based assessment.<n>We compare 20 configurations spanning Qwen2.5-VL, InternVL3, Pixtral, a Donut baseline, and a cascade ensemble.
• Score: 0.3686530147760243
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Criterion-level grading connects examination performance to learning outcomes, but manual marking introduces workload and variation between markers. This study evaluates vision-language models (VLMs) for handwritten outcome-based assessment across five dimensions: accuracy, human agreement, repeated-run reliability, error concentration, and explanation quality. Using 1,982 criterion-level records from 485 undergraduate examination answers, we compare 20 configurations spanning Qwen2.5-VL, InternVL3, Pixtral, a Donut baseline, and a cascade ensemble. Evaluation setups include zero-shot prompting, few-shot prompting, partial fine-tuning, and Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA). Two independent faculty markers regraded all 291 test criteria, providing a human agreement baseline on the same assessment materials. Qwen2.5-VL with LoRA achieved Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK) of 0.727 and mean absolute error of 0.435 marks against the examiner, compared with mean human-pair QWK of 0.551. This comparison reflects calibration to the examiner's training marks. LoRA outperformed partial fine-tuning for all three instruction-tuned VLMs, while few-shot prompting reduced QWK in every configuration with valid prompted scores. Aggregate reliability and exact repeatability diverged: intraclass correlations ranged from 0.790 to 0.874, yet 50.2-63.6% of criteria changed marks across five sampled runs. Attention-guided deletion showed no statistically significant advantage over random masking, and four faculty reviewers reached no consensus on explanation usefulness. These findings highlight the need for rubric-specific calibration, repeatable scoring, review of consequential errors, and separate validation of explanations. The released evaluation protocol supports criterion-level assessment research and grading tools with teacher oversight.

Related papers

• NovGauge: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Diagnosing LLMs' Capability in Paper Novelty Assessment [54.4265627247104]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in peer review at major AI conferences.<n>Existing benchmarks assess novelty as a single holistic score.<n>We present NovGauge, a human-anchored benchmark for fine-grained novelty assessment diagnosis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T08:34:56Z)
• Local Brushstroke Quality Assessment via Vision-Language Feedback [16.561215035945423]
  This paper investigates whether multimodal LLMs can evaluate local brushstroke quality in calligraphy and generate educationally useful natural language feedback.<n>We construct an evaluation framework in which three multimodal LLMs assess before-after image pairs of calligraphic works using a five-point ordinal scale, and compare their outputs against scores assigned by three expert calligraphers.<n>We additionally examine a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) variant of Claude as a preliminary condition. Results show that all models achieve useful levels of absolute score accuracy (MAE), with GPT-4o performing best (MAE = 0.885)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-15T18:22:21Z)
• Zero-Shot Vision-Language Models for Classroom Engagement Recognition: A Benchmark Study of Prompt Sensitivity and Cross-Dataset Generalization [0.44787896002954924]
  We present a systematic benchmark that evaluates five widely-used Vision-Language Models (VLMs)<n>Our experiments reveal three primary failure modes of zero-shot VLMs for engagement recognition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-20T03:53:40Z)
• Knowledge Index of Noah's Ark [63.143852586221534]
  We introduce KINA, an 899-item benchmark across 261 fine-grained disciplines.<n>We prove a bonus-on-bar tournament weakly FOSD-dominates flat payment in released-review quality.<n>The top model, Gemini-3.1-Pro-Preview, reaches 53.17%, followed by Claude-Opus-4.6 at 49.92% and GPT-5.4 at 48.55%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T17:06:49Z)
• Step-wise Rubric Rewards for LLM Reasoning [72.17879367869503]
  Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) is widely used to improve reasoning in large language models.<n>We find 18.2% of steps in correct responses are wrong yet positively rewarded.<n>Across six mathematical reasoning benchmarks, SRaR improves average accuracy over RaR by 3.57 points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T07:08:14Z)
• Encyclo-K: Evaluating LLMs with Dynamically Composed Knowledge Statements [78.87065404966002]
  Existing benchmarks predominantly curate questions at the question level.<n>We propose Encyclo-K, a statement-based benchmark that rethinks benchmark construction from the ground up.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-31T13:55:54Z)
• CARE What Fails: Contrastive Anchored-REflection for Verifiable Multimodal [84.71254539482369]
  Group-relative reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) often wastes the most informative data it already has the failures.<n>We present CARE, a failure-centric post-training framework for multimodal reasoning that turns errors into supervision.<n> CARE improves accuracy and training smoothness while explicitly increasing the share of learning signal that comes from failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T16:34:21Z)
• Evaluating the Ability of Large Language Models to Identify Adherence to CONSORT Reporting Guidelines in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Methodological Evaluation Study [7.142913983218931]
  This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of contemporary LLMs in identifying adherence of published RCTs.<n>We constructed a golden standard dataset of 150 published RCTs spanning diverse medical specialties.<n>Top-performing models, Gemini-2.5-Flash and DeepSeek-R1, achieved nearly identical macro F1 scores of 0.634 and Cohen's Kappa coefficients of 0.280 and 0.282, respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-17T08:05:15Z)
• ChatGPT for automated grading of short answer questions in mechanical ventilation [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) simulate conversational language and interpret unstructured free-text responses.<n>We evaluated ChatGPT 4o to grade SAQs in a postgraduate medical setting using data from 215 students.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-05T19:04:25Z)
• SummExecEdit: A Factual Consistency Benchmark in Summarization with Executable Edits [31.98028879922584]
  We introduce SummExecEdit, a novel pipeline and benchmark to assess models on their ability to both detect factual errors and provide accurate explanations.<n>The top-performing model, Claude3-Opus, achieves a joint detection and explanation score of only 0.49 in our benchmark.<n>We identify four primary types of explanation errors, with 45.4% of them involving a focus on completely unrelated parts of the summary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T23:26:44Z)
• Is GPT-4 a reliable rater? Evaluating Consistency in GPT-4 Text Ratings [63.35165397320137]
  This study investigates the consistency of feedback ratings generated by OpenAI's GPT-4. The model rated responses to tasks within the Higher Education subject domain of macroeconomics in terms of their content and style.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-03T12:47:17Z)

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.