# Assisting the Grading of a Handwritten General Chemistry Exam with Artificial Intelligence

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.10591 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.10591/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 1 of its 20 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 12 Sep 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Stability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1310.0150/) (2013)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Artificial-Intelligence Grading Assistance for Handwritten Components of a Calculus Exam](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.05162/) (2025)
- [A Human-in-the-Loop Framework for AI-Assisted Scoring in Large-Scale Writing Assessment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.05143/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We explore the effectiveness and reliability of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based grading system for a handwritten general chemistry exam, comparing AI-assigned scores to human grading across various types of questions. Exam pages and grading rubrics were uploaded as images to account for chemical reaction equations, short and long open-ended answers, numerical and symbolic answer derivations, drawing, and sketching in pencil-and-paper format. Using linear regression analyses and psychometric evaluations, the investigation reveals high agreement between AI and human graders for textual and chemical reaction questions, while highlighting lower reliability for numerical and graphical tasks. The findings emphasize the necessity for human oversight to ensure grading accuracy, based on selective filtering. The results indicate promising applications for AI in routine assessment tasks, though careful consideration must be given to student perceptions of fairness and trust in integrating AI-based grading into educational practice.