arXiv:2608.22346v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This data article describes a multimodal collection of scanned examination answers paired with expert-designed Outcome-Based Education (OBE) grading...
arXiv:2609. 31450v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Medical vision-language model (VLM) post-training is commonly evaluated through answer accuracy.
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.
arXiv:2609.13288v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Video-language models can answer multiple-choice questions with high confidence yet be wrong. We study whether answer-level reliability scores can be i...
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.
arXiv:2606. 12422v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The integration of large language models (LLMs) into educational assessment represents a transformative shift in classroom grading practices.
arXiv:2607. 02432v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scalable and reliable grading of command-line examinations remains a challenge in computing education, where rising enrolments make manual marking difficult and rule-based autograders cannot handle partial credit, equivalent solutions, or syntactic variation.
The paper introduces AICG, a two‑branch framework that enhances automated short answer grading by combining RoBERTa‑based answer scoring with a cognitive supervision branch that predicts skill mastery using a Q‑matrix and G‑DINA model. It also incorporates a generative‑AI detector to weight responses based on the likelihood of AI assistance, thereby reducing bias. Experiments on over 49,000 instructor‑graded responses show that AICG cuts mean absolute error by 50.3% and raises quadratic weighted kappa from 0.798 to 0.927 compared to baseline RoBERTa regression.
arXiv:2608. 07523v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Difficulty differences across parallel-class programming examinations affect the fairness of course assessment.
The paper introduces a human‑in‑the‑loop framework for AI‑assisted scoring of short written responses in a large‑scale national assessment. Using data from two recent test editions with about 5,000 student responses each, the authors validate that AI‑generated scores align moderately to highly with human raters across multiple rubric dimensions. The framework includes a correction workflow that flags cases needing human review, thereby reducing manual workload while maintaining assessment quality.
The study introduces MedQADE, a German open‑response clinical benchmark with 3,800 question‑answer pairs and physician reference annotations. It evaluates large language models (LLMs) as judges, finding that while some LLMs (e.g., Gemini 3 Flash) achieve physician‑level agreement on correctness, they exhibit self‑bias and low abstention rates. Physicians showed moderate agreement on correctness but limited agreement on difficulty, and their abstention increased with perceived difficulty.
arXiv:2608.29517v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as essay graders in learning analytics, evaluated almost exclusively with agreement statistics. Educ...