mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

NERIF: GPT-4V for Automatic Scoring of Drawn Models

arXiv 2311.12990 ↗First posted 21 Nov 2023cs.AIcited by 13

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Scoring student-drawn models is time-consuming. Recently released GPT-4V provides a unique opportunity to advance scientific modeling practices by leveraging the powerful image processing capability. To test this ability specifically for automatic scoring, we developed a method NERIF (Notation-Enhanced Rubric Instruction for Few-shot Learning) employing instructional note and rubrics to prompt GPT-4V to score students' drawn models for science phenomena. We randomly selected a set of balanced data (N = 900) that includes student-drawn models for six modeling assessment tasks. Each model received a score from GPT-4V ranging at three levels: 'Beginning,' 'Developing,' or 'Proficient' according to scoring rubrics. GPT-4V scores were compared with human experts' scores to calculate scoring accuracy. Results show that GPT-4V's average scoring accuracy was mean =.51, SD = .037. Specifically, average scoring accuracy was .64 for the 'Beginning' class, .62 for the 'Developing' class, and .26 for the 'Proficient' class, indicating that more proficient models are more challenging to score. Further qualitative study reveals how GPT-4V retrieves information from image input, including problem context, example evaluations provided by human coders, and students' drawing models. We also uncovered how GPT-4V catches the characteristics of student-drawn models and narrates them in natural language. At last, we demonstrated how GPT-4V assigns scores to student-drawn models according to the given scoring rubric and instructional notes. Our findings suggest that the NERIF is an effective approach for employing GPT-4V to score drawn models. Even though there is space for GPT-4V to improve scoring accuracy, some mis-assigned scores seemed interpretable to experts. The results of this study show that utilizing GPT-4V for automatic scoring of student-drawn models is promising.

Key facts. Cited by 13 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 61 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Nov 2023.

Builds on

19 of 61 references.

References · 19

  1. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
  2. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
  3. 2015Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Visioncited by 5,475
  4. 2015VQA: Visual Question Answeringcited by 2,506
  5. 2023Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Promptingcited by 1,122
  6. 2023The Dawn of LMMs: Preliminary Explorations with GPT-4V(ision)cited by 681
  7. 2023Visual ChatGPT: Talking, Drawing and Editing with Visual Foundation Modelscited by 668
  8. 2019Generalizing from a Few Examples: A Survey on Few-Shot Learningcited by 463
  9. 2023Role-Play with Large Language Modelscited by 294
  10. 2023Can GPT-4V(ision) Serve Medical Applications? Case Studies on GPT-4V for Multimodal Medical Diagnosiscited by 77
  11. 2019Ablation Studies in Artificial Neural Networkscited by 60
  12. 2023Towards End-to-End Embodied Decision Making via Multi-modal Large Language Model: Explorations with GPT4-Vision and Beyondcited by 51
7 more
  1. 2023Fine-tuning ChatGPT for Automatic Scoringcited by 51
  2. 2021A Review on Explainability in Multimodal Deep Neural Netscited by 46
  3. 2023Can Language Models be Instructed to Protect Personal Information?cited by 46
  4. 2023Exploring OCR Capabilities of GPT-4V(ision) : A Quantitative and In-depth Evaluationcited by 46
  5. 2023An Early Evaluation of GPT-4V(ision)cited by 31
  6. 2023Using GPT-4 to Augment Unbalanced Data for Automatic Scoringcited by 20
  7. 2023GPT-4 Vision on Medical Image Classification -- A Case Study on COVID-19 Datasetcited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 8; 2025: 1; 2026: 3.

13 papers.

Sort:

By area: