arXiv AI

Towards Fully Automated Exam Grading: Fairness-Aware Recognition of Handwritten Answers with Foundation Models

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 AI
Aug 20

Measuring the Partial-Credit Gap: A Strict Benchmark on Vietnam's 2025 Convex Marking Scheme

The paper introduces THPT‑Ladder, a benchmark based on Vietnam’s 2025 National High School Graduation Examination’s convex grading scheme, which rewards partial credit non‑additively. It shows that standard accuracy metrics inflate model scores because they treat partial knowledge proportionally, whereas the official rubric penalizes incomplete correct sets. Using the benchmark, the authors demonstrate that this discrepancy can shift a model’s percentile ranking by up to 13 points among over 480,000 candidates.

By Nguyen Quoc Hung, Nguyen Dang Minh, Le Nhu Quynh, Tran Khanh Linh, Nguyen Kieu Linh
arXiv AI
Sep 25

Where LLM Graders Succeed and Break: Evidence from Two Computer-Science Exams

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 AI
Aug 19

Grading Needs a Rubric, Not Intelligence

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