Sketch2Feedback: Grammar-in-the-Loop Framework for Rubric-Aligned Feedback on Student STEM Diagrams
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Providing timely, rubric-aligned feedback on student-drawn diagrams is a persistent challenge in STEM education. While large multimodal models (LMMs) can jointly parse images and generate explanations, their tendency to hallucinate undermines trust in classroom deployments. We present Sketch2Feedback, a grammar-in-the-loop framework that decomposes the problem into four stages -- hybrid perception, symbolic graph construction, constraint checking, and constrained VLM feedback -- so that the language model verbalizes only violations verified by an upstream rule engine. We evaluate on two synthetic micro-benchmarks, FBD-10 (free-body diagrams) and Circuit-10 (circuit schematics), each with 500 images spanning standard and hard noise augmentation tiers, comparing our pipeline against end-to-end LMMs (LLaVA-1.5-7B, Qwen2-VL-7B), a vision-only detector, a YOLOv8-nano learned detector, and an ensemble oracle. On n=100 test samples per benchmark with 95% bootstrap CIs, results are mixed and instructive: Qwen2-VL-7B achieves the highest micro-F1 on both FBDs (0.570) and circuits (0.528), but with extreme hallucination rates (0.78, 0.98). An ensemble oracle that selects the best prediction per sample reaches F1=0.556 with hallucination 0.320 on FBDs, demonstrating exploitable complementarity between grammar and end-to-end approaches. Confidence thresholding at tau=0.7 reduces circuit hallucination from 0.970 to 0.880 with no F1 loss. Hard noise augmentation reveals domain-dependent robustness: FBD detection is resilient while circuit detection degrades sharply. An LLM-as-judge evaluation confirms that the grammar pipeline produces more actionable circuit feedback (4.85/5) than the end-to-end LMM (3.11/5). We release all code, datasets, and evaluation scripts.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 17 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Feb 2026.
Builds on
5 of 17 references.
References · 5
- 2023Visual Instruction Tuningcited by 7,792
- 2023Improved Baselines with Visual Instruction Tuningcited by 4,362
- 2024Qwen2-VL: Enhancing Vision-Language Model's Perception of the World at Any Resolutioncited by 4,151
- 2024MiniCPM-V: A GPT-4V Level MLLM on Your Phonecited by 1,061
- 2024What matters when building vision-language models?cited by 321
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026SketchJudge: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Grading Hand-drawn Diagrams with Multimodal Large Language Models
- 2026EDU-CIRCUIT-HW: Evaluating Multimodal Large Language Models on Real-World University-Level STEM Student Handwritten Solutions
- 2025SketchMind: A Multi-Agent Cognitive Framework for Assessing Student-Drawn Scientific Sketches
- 2026Simulating Validity: Modal Decoupling in MLLM Generated Feedback on Science Drawings
- 2026Unveiling Fine-Grained Visual Traces: Evaluating Multimodal Interleaved Reasoning Chains in Multimodal STEM Tasks
- 2025DrawEduMath: Evaluating Vision Language Models with Expert-Annotated Students' Hand-Drawn Math Images
- 2025Draw with Thought: Unleashing Multimodal Reasoning for Scientific Diagram Generation
- 2026From Terminology to Diagrams: Visual-Instruction Generation for Scientific Diagram Understanding