Small language models can grade open‑ended exam answers as reliably as much larger models when they use an explicit rubric. In experiments with six cost‑efficient model configurations, the rubric decouples grading from judge intelligence, with answer identity explaining 95.6% of score variance and judge identity only 0.2%. Removing rubric criteria or the official answer collapses reliability and inflates scores, showing the rubric’s essential role.
By Jhen-Ke Lin
The study evaluates large language model (LLM) graders on two computer‑science exams, testing 171 configurations of closed‑ and open‑weights models. While the best LLM configuration achieved a mean absolute error of 1.64/35—better than the 2.61/35 error between two human graders—its performance was highly sensitive to the prompt. A short "strict grader" preamble caused most open‑weight models to exceed acceptable error thresholds or stop grading entirely, whereas fine‑tuning with a single LoRA adapter restored parity with human graders and reduced sensitivity to harsh prompts.
By Ali Habibullah, Yazan Alshoibi, Mohammad Alshiekh, Salman Khan, Naeemullah Khan
arXiv:2606. 11477v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Correcting handwritten exams by hand is time-consuming and error-prone, particularly for large cohorts, while fully digital exams tend to force a didactic narrowing towards closed question formats.
By Hartwig Grabowski
The paper introduces an audit layer for vision‑language model benchmarks that reuses per‑question artifacts from evaluation runs to assess the benchmark itself. Six detectors analyze saved outputs, and an additional text‑only rerun removes visual inputs to produce per‑question reports and aggregate statistics, including permutation‑null excess and interval estimates. Applying this method to the MMStar benchmark reveals that 20.2% of its questions show no accuracy gain from images, with a small but significant excess in mathematics and science categories, and identifies questions where all models chose the same non‑gold option.
By Denis Degtiarev, Anna Gromova, Sergey Katkov, Artem Mikhailin, Safina Mukhamedshina, Albert Nasybullin, Karina Shaikhutdinova, Artem Tuzov
arXiv:2607. 01247v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Open-ended mathematics exams are valuable because they assess reasoning, proof construction, algorithmic thinking, and communication of intermediate steps.
By Aastha Sapkota, M. G. Sarwar Murshed
arXiv:2610.19848v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: We present OpenTWBench, an open evaluation suite for Taiwan-domain knowledge in large language models, built around two benchmarks. tw-exam-bench conta...
By Liang-Hsun Huang, Min-Yi Chen, Chao-Chun Chuang, Yu-Wei Liu, Che-Yu Wu, Po-Feng Lee
arXiv:2608. 07523v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Difficulty differences across parallel-class programming examinations affect the fairness of course assessment.
By Hongfei Yan, Jiangkai Xiong, Yiqing Li, Chong Chen
arXiv:2610.19992v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Law students are examined through open-text answers: case solutions, essays and memos that apply the law to a set of facts. Such answers are expensive...
By Sebastian Nagl
arXiv:2606. 15887v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) systems are increasingly proposed to assist peer review, yet most evaluations judge the prose of machine-generated review text, not the validity of the numeric score a system assigns.
By Costa Georgantas
The paper introduces a calibrated instrument for rigorously measuring how inference optimizations—such as quantization, early‑exit, and speculative decoding—affect the output quality of large language models. It uses a formally calibrated LLM judge that verifies no systematic bias between statistically equivalent outputs and includes a null condition to ensure measured differences are zero. Applying this method, the authors find that a 4‑bit model is indistinguishable from its 16‑bit counterpart, while 3‑bit quantization and early‑exit techniques incur measurable quality losses that vary by language and task, and that token‑certainty‑based acceptance rules cannot reliably identify impactful errors.
By Jerry Kaplan
The article examines how classical test theory statistics—Kuder‑Richardson coefficient, dependability index, and Livingston‑Lewis accuracy—can mislead when applied to large language model (LLM) judges that are evaluated with a single prompt and no gold labels. Using Claude Haiku 4.5 on 210 short‑answer items, the authors show that these metrics fail to isolate the judge’s performance because the judge’s single administration provides no variance component. They argue that reliable statements about an LLM judge require gold labels or varied scorer facets, and that bank design heavily influences reliability estimates.
By Louis Yiven Zhu
arXiv:2610.19138v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: How well can a language model turn a large, incomplete and partly contradictory body of documents into a plan when no single correct answer exists? We...
By Rodney Lafuente-Mercado, Robert Sincero, Phil Sage, Yuan Xue