mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Can MLLMs generate human-like feedback in grading multimodal short answers?

arXiv 2412.19755 ↗First posted 27 Dec 2024cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In education, the traditional Automatic Short Answer Grading (ASAG) with feedback problem has focused primarily on evaluating text-only responses. However, real-world assessments often include multimodal responses containing both diagrams and text. To address this limitation, we introduce the Multimodal Short Answer Grading with Feedback (MMSAF) problem, which requires jointly evaluating textual and diagrammatic content while also providing explanatory feedback. Collecting data representative of such multimodal responses is challenging due to both scale and logistical constraints. To mitigate this, we develop an automated data generation framework that leverages LLM hallucinations to mimic common student errors, thereby constructing a dataset of 2,197 instances. We evaluate 4 Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) across 3 STEM subjects, showing that MLLMs achieve accuracies of up to 62.5% in predicting answer correctness (correct/partially correct/incorrect) and up to 80.36% in assessing image relevance. This also includes a human evaluation with 9 annotators across 5 parameters, including a rubric-based approach. The rubrics also serve as a way to evaluate the feedback quality semantically rather than using overlap-based approaches. Our findings highlight which MLLMs are better suited for such tasks while also pointing out to drawbacks of the remaining MLLMs.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Dec 2024.

Builds on

9 of 23 references.

References · 9

  1. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
  2. 2018A Call for Clarity in Reporting BLEU Scorescited by 1,799
  3. 2023A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questionscited by 1,601
  4. 2018ROUGE 2.0: Updated and Improved Measures for Evaluation of Summarization Taskscited by 67
  5. 2023Distilling ChatGPT for Explainable Automated Student Answer Assessmentcited by 14
  6. 2023NERIF: GPT-4V for Automatic Scoring of Drawn Modelscited by 13
  7. 2023Pre-training Language Models for Comparative Reasoningcited by 6
  8. 2024Beyond Scores: A Modular RAG-Based System for Automatic Short Answer Scoring with Feedbackcited by 5
  9. 2022Knowledge Distillation Transfer Sets and their Impact on Downstream NLU Taskscited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Language Models are Few-Shot Graders
  2. 2025SteLLA: A Structured Grading System Using LLMs with RAG
  3. 2026Human-Grounded Multimodal Benchmark with 900K-Scale Aggregated Student Response Distributions from Japan's National Assessment of Academic Ability
  4. 2024MME-Survey: A Comprehensive Survey on Evaluation of Multimodal LLMs
  5. 2023MLLM-Bench: Evaluating Multimodal LLMs with Per-sample Criteria
  6. 2023MME: A Comprehensive Evaluation Benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Models
  7. 2026How effective are VLMs in assisting humans in inferring the quality of mental models from Multimodal short answers?
  8. 2024Unveiling the Ignorance of MLLMs: Seeing Clearly, Answering Incorrectly