# Vision-Language Models for Criterion-Level Grading of Handwritten Examinations in Outcome-Based Education

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.14284 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.14284/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models.
- Builds on 19 of its 46 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

- Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models / [VLM benchmarks and visual reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/mllm/vlm-benchmarks-and-visual-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 19 of 19)

- [Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.00020/) (2021)
- [PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.01703/) (2019)
- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [Visual Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.08485/) (2023)
- [Qwen2.5-VL Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.13923/) (2025)
- [BLIP: Bootstrapping Language-Image Pre-training for Unified Vision-Language Understanding and Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.12086/) (2022)
- [QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14314/) (2023)
- [InternVL3: Exploring Advanced Training and Test-Time Recipes for Open-Source Multimodal Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.10479/) (2025)
- [Quantifying Attention Flow in Transformers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00928/) (2020)
- [Transformer Interpretability Beyond Attention Visualization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.09838/) (2020)
- [OCR-free Document Understanding Transformer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.15664/) (2021)
- [LoRA Learns Less and Forgets Less](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.09673/) (2024)
- [TrOCR: Transformer-based Optical Character Recognition with Pre-trained Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.10282/) (2021)
- [MMLongBench-Doc: Benchmarking Long-context Document Understanding with Visualizations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.01523/) (2024)
- [Pixtral 12B](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.07073/) (2024)
- [Automated essay scoring with string kernels and word embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.07954/) (2018)
- [On the Faithfulness of Vision Transformer Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.01415/) (2024)
- [Benchmarking Large Language Models for Handwritten Text Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.15195/) (2025)
- [Multimodal examination answer data with expert-designed Outcome-Based Education rubrics for criterion-level assessment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.22346/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Criterion-level grading connects examination performance to learning outcomes, but manual marking introduces workload and variation between markers. This study evaluates vision-language models (VLMs) for handwritten outcome-based assessment across five dimensions: accuracy, human agreement, repeated-run reliability, error concentration, and explanation quality. Using 1,982 criterion-level records from 485 undergraduate examination answers, we compare 20 configurations spanning Qwen2.5-VL, InternVL3, Pixtral, a Donut baseline, and a cascade ensemble. Evaluation setups include zero-shot prompting, few-shot prompting, partial fine-tuning, and Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA). Two independent faculty markers regraded all 291 test criteria, providing a human agreement baseline on the same assessment materials. Qwen2.5-VL with LoRA achieved Quadratic Weighted Kappa (QWK) of 0.727 and mean absolute error of 0.435 marks against the examiner, compared with mean human-pair QWK of 0.551. This comparison reflects calibration to the examiner's training marks. LoRA outperformed partial fine-tuning for all three instruction-tuned VLMs, while few-shot prompting reduced QWK in every configuration with valid prompted scores. Aggregate reliability and exact repeatability diverged: intraclass correlations ranged from 0.790 to 0.874, yet 50.2-63.6% of criteria changed marks across five sampled runs. Attention-guided deletion showed no statistically significant advantage over random masking, and four faculty reviewers reached no consensus on explanation usefulness. These findings highlight the need for rubric-specific calibration, repeatable scoring, review of consequential errors, and separate validation of explanations. The released evaluation protocol supports criterion-level assessment research and grading tools with teacher oversight.