REVIEW 1 cited by
Evaluating GPT-4 at Grading Handwritten Solutions in Math Exams
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Recent advances in generative artificial intelligence (AI) have shown promise in accurately grading open-ended student responses. However, few prior works have explored grading handwritten responses due to a lack of data and the challenge of combining visual and textual information. In this work, we leverage state-of-the-art multi-modal AI models, in particular GPT-4o, to automatically grade handwritten responses to college-level math exams. Using real student responses to questions in a probability theory exam, we evaluate GPT-4o's alignment with ground-truth scores from human graders using various prompting techniques. We find that while providing rubrics improves alignment, the model's overall accuracy is still too low for real-world settings, showing there is significant room for growth in this task.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Automated Grading of Students' Handwritten Graphs: A Comparison of Meta-Learning and Vision-Large Language Models
The best meta-learning models reach 56.9% in 2-way grading and the best vision-language models reach 50.0% in 3-way grading of handwritten economics graphs, both near chance levels.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.