mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Grading Handwritten Engineering Exams with Multimodal Large Language Models

arXiv 2601.00730 ↗First posted 2 Jan 2026cs.CVcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Handwritten STEM exams capture open-ended reasoning and diagrams, but manual grading is slow and difficult to scale. We present an end-to-end workflow for grading scanned handwritten engineering quizzes with multimodal large language models (LLMs) that preserves the standard exam process (A4 paper, unconstrained student handwriting). The lecturer provides only a handwritten reference solution (100%) and a short set of grading rules; the reference is converted into a text-only summary that conditions grading without exposing the reference scan. Reliability is achieved through a multi-stage design with a format/presence check to prevent grading blank answers, an ensemble of independent graders, supervisor aggregation, and rigid templates with deterministic validation to produce auditable, machine-parseable reports. We evaluate the frozen pipeline in a clean-room protocol on a held-out real course quiz in Slovenian, including hand-drawn circuit schematics. With state-of-the-art backends (GPT-5.2 and Gemini-3 Pro), the full pipeline achieves ≈8-point mean absolute difference to lecturer grades with low bias and an estimated manual-review trigger rate of ≈17% at Dmax=40. Ablations show that trivial prompting and removing the reference solution substantially degrade accuracy and introduce systematic over-grading, confirming that structured prompting and reference grounding are essential.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Jan 2026.

Builds on

7 of 26 references.

References · 7

  1. 2022Survey on Automated Short Answer Grading with Deep Learning: from Word Embeddings to Transformerscited by 20
  2. 2015Mathematical Language Processing: Automatic Grading and Feedback for Open Response Mathematical Questionscited by 19
  3. 2025DrawEduMath: Evaluating Vision Language Models with Expert-Annotated Students' Hand-Drawn Math Imagescited by 17
  4. 2023Performance of the Pre-Trained Large Language Model GPT-4 on Automated Short Answer Gradingcited by 15
  5. 2024Can Large Language Models Make the Grade? An Empirical Study Evaluating LLMs Ability to Mark Short Answer Questions in K-12 Educationcited by 11
  6. 2024Evaluating GPT-4 at Grading Handwritten Solutions in Math Examscited by 10
  7. 2025Automated Grading of Students' Handwritten Graphs: A Comparison of Meta-Learning and Vision-Large Language Modelscited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026EDU-CIRCUIT-HW: Evaluating Multimodal Large Language Models on Real-World University-Level STEM Student Handwritten Solutions
  2. 2026Evaluating AI Grading on Real-World Handwritten College Mathematics: A Large-Scale Study Toward a Benchmark
  3. 2026Towards Fully Automated Exam Grading: Fairness-Aware Recognition of Handwritten Answers with Foundation Models
  4. 2026Vision-Language Models for Criterion-Level Grading of Handwritten Examinations in Outcome-Based Education
  5. 2025Seeing the Big Picture: Evaluating Multimodal LLMs' Ability to Interpret and Grade Handwritten Student Work
  6. 2025Artificial-Intelligence Grading Assistance for Handwritten Components of a Calculus Exam
  7. 2026Can MLLMs Read Students' Minds? Unpacking Multimodal Error Analysis in Handwritten Math
  8. 2025Evaluating Vision-Language and Large Language Models for Automated Student Assessment in Indonesian Classrooms