Examiners

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.

We introduce a Polish-language medical visual question answering (VQA) benchmark, built from Polish Board Certification Examination questions for licensed physicians and dentists pursuing specialist certification. The benchmark comprises image-containing questions spanning diverse medical specialties and visual domains, together with a text-only question answering (QA) control set. We evaluate Polish-oriented, general-purpose open-weight, and commercial vision-language models. The task remains challenging: the best model achieves 79.0% accuracy on the full VQA set, and only GPT-5.6 surpasses the approximate human reference on the subset with available candidate responses; all other evaluated models perform worse than humans. To assess visual grounding, we compare complete inputs with configurations omitting the image, the question, or both, and categorize questions by image importance. Models derive more useful information from the question text than from the image and perform worse on image-dominant questions. Across both QA and VQA, they nevertheless achieve above-chance accuracy from the answer choices alone, showing that non-trivial performance can persist even when key task components are missing.

Language models are increasingly promoted from examinees to examiners: they write the test suites, answer keys, rubrics, and reward functions that define correctness for other systems. We measure the capability that role assumes and find it lacking under the protocol the role is usually deployed with, one-shot greedy authoring with no test-time reasoning. Across four reference constructions - two with complete finite truth, one with a hardened executable reference (HumanEval+/MBPP+), one with an explicitly incomplete lexical reference (WordNet) - models judge whether a candidate belongs far better than they author the set itself. On the incompleteness-proof algorithmic construction the gap is +0.34 to +0.29 F1 over a 24x parameter range and does not close; on executable code, models judging at F1 0.74-0.90 author suites admitting only 19-42% of oracle-correct solutions. A control locates the deficit: asked to emit the predicate rather than its extension, the same models reach F1 about 0.99. The failure is not missing knowledge or an inability to specify, but an inability to materialise the region a specification induces. The dominant error is omission, which resists audit: an over-inclusion is a token a reviewer can challenge, a missing member an absence whose discovery is the authoring problem itself. Models detect planted over-inclusions 6-7x more often than planted omissions, and a production deployment of 43,227 items fails omission-first at 10:1. Wired into RLVR, an authored key costs 1.9 points of accuracy against an exact oracle and 18.5 WordNet-relative (six paired seeds, p=0.031). Gating authored verifiers on a known-correct probe cuts false rejection from 58-92% to at most 5%, but keeps only 5-39% of suites. Repairing them instead, by rewriting each wrong expected value to what a reference execution returns, raises yield 3.3-10.6x across four author families.

Psychometric calibration for educational tests typically requires costly human response data. Large language models (LLMs) simulated examinees offer a promising route to early calibration, but their responses are too accurate and too uniform. We propose Cognitive Diagnostic Profiling (CDP), a zero-shot framework that prompts LLMs to simulate plausible examinees with diverse cognitive profiles: binary attribute-mastery patterns are rendered as natural-language profiles and sampled under an uninformative or an informative distribution. Using the Tatsuoka fraction-subtraction dataset (536 examinees, 15 items, five attributes), we evaluated eight LLM configurations under no-profile, uninformative-CDP, and informative-CDP conditions, assessing alignment with human examinees at the ability-distribution, mastery-profile, and item-difficulty levels. CDP improved all three levels: distributional overlap rose across configurations; weighted correlations between profile-level scores and human profile expectations reached 0.92 to 0.98; and item-difficulty recovery improved in rank order and absolute alignment, most for reasoning-enabled models; in the strongest case, Gemini 3.0 Flash (Thinking), one-parameter logistic (1PL) difficulty Spearman correlations rose from 0.24 to 0.86 and 0.90 and the root-mean-square error (RMSE) fell from 6.31 to 1.30 and 0.90; the informative condition helped most where profile-level alignment was strong. CDP brings LLM-simulated examinees into closer psychometric alignment with human examinees, making them practical for operational test development.

Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) are the gold standard for assessing clinical competence, yet scoring remains vulnerable to examiner subjectivity, fatigue, and cognitive bias. Standard examiner validation via inter-rater statistics lacks explanatory power regarding the source of errors, as it neither analyzes examiner reasoning nor verifies examiner claims against actual events. Thus, we introduce Quality Action Assurance (QAA), a multimodal framework that verifies examiner claims in Virtual Reality (VR) pediatric OSCEs by comparing actions claimed by examiners against a reference record of events constructed from video, VR logs, and actor annotations. QAA combines a constrained temporal action alignment model, which performs action localization and actor source attribution, with a large language model that extracts examiner claims and checks them against the record. Across a 5-fold cross-validation, QAA achieves 99.2% $\pm$ 0.7% Actor F1 and 93.4% $\pm$ 1.9% W@16 for temporal alignment. Overall, QAA detects examiner errors with 69.9% precision and 76.7% recall; in retrospective evaluation, correcting the detected errors raises the share of factually correct transcripts from 39.2% to 79.2%, supporting fairer OSCE quality assessment.

Human vision is a closed loop: gaze is continuously redirected by intermediate hypotheses rather than a single snapshot. Decades of psychophysics and cognitive science have argued that this active observation is essential for a wide range of tasks. Whether today's multimodal large language models (MLLMs) exercise active observation is an empirical question that current vision-language benchmarks do not answer. We introduce ActiveVision, a benchmark that makes active observation measurable for MLLMs, comprising 17 tasks across 3 categories. Tasks are designed to force repeated visual perception rather than a single static description. Frontier MLLMs collapse on ActiveVision: the highest-scoring model we evaluate, GPT-5.5 at the highest exposed reasoning-effort tier, solves only 10.6% of items and scores zero on 11 of the 17 tasks, and even Claude Fable 5, despite topping most reasoning and coding leaderboards, solves just 3.5%, far behind three human participants who average 96.1%. Furthermore, much of the gap persists even when models write and run their own vision code: such code is unreliable on realistic imagery, and catching its failures itself requires the active perception the models lack. Together, these results indicate that current MLLMs lack robust active visual observation, motivating architectures and training objectives that close the perception-reasoning loop.

In 2019, OpenAI released two million GPT-2 outputs-ungrammatical, half broken-to aid the detection of machine-generated text. The alignment that produced their more fluent successors is usually regarded as an engineering achievement; we read it instead as the newest expression of optimization culture: the conviction, older than the technology, that measurable improvement along predefined axes exhausts the question of value. Tracing that conviction through the stack-pretraining, decoding, preference tuning, benchmarking, interface-and back through its genealogy in the audit society, we arrive at the limit: an optimization procedure can measure how improbable a piece of generated text is; it cannot tell whether that unlikelihood is error or invention. A procedure that cannot make that distinction has nonetheless, within half a decade, assumed the authority to set the protocols of legitimate language. Held for centuries by academies and schoolrooms, grammars and examiners, this authority has been given over to loss functions, reward models, benchmarks, and system prompts: an apparatus that executes the office of judgment with no capacity for judging.

i-EXAM is a planning-powered tool that helps system administrators to create security profiles of complex networks and perform what-if analyses to identify network hardening strategies. It leverages planning compilation that provides soundness and completeness guarantees to identify attack paths, evaluate security metrics, generate diverse hardening strategies, and explain these strategies in natural language using Large Language Models.

Scalable and reliable grading of command-line examinations remains a challenge in computing education, where rising enrolments make manual marking difficult and rule-based autograders cannot handle partial credit, equivalent solutions, or syntactic variation. This paper evaluates whether four frontier Large Language Models (GPT, Claude Opus, Gemini, and GLM) can approximate expert judgment when grading short Linux/bash command responses. The study adopts a four-level cognitive taxonomy that combines cognitive complexity and operational impact, ranging from information retrieval (L1) and basic file manipulation (L2) to structural operations (L3) and advanced system management (L4). The models were tested with two prompt variants, a minimal baseline and a rubric-enhanced version, on 1200 real responses from second-year Computer Engineering students independently graded by three expert instructors. Gemini~3.0 Pro with rubric-guided prompting achieved the highest human-AI agreement (ICC(3,1) = 0.888, MAE = 0.10, Bland-Altman bias = -0.014). Agreement declined consistently as taxonomy level increased, with the largest discrepancies at higher levels. Across all models, rubric quality had a larger effect than provider choice, with structured prompts consistently improving agreement. These results show that question complexity is a reliable predictor of the difficulty LLMs face in grading accurately, and they establish a principled, taxonomy-based framework for determining which questions are suitable for AI-assisted grading and which require human review, while also providing a transferable evaluation protocol and prompt templates.

Verifying the eligibility of securities as collateral is a key responsibility of the German Central Bank. However, manually verifying these assets against legal and financial criteria within lengthy, semi-structured, and often bilingual prospectuses is a resource-intensive task. While previous efforts utilized traditional Named Entity Recognition (NER) for information extraction, these methods can struggle with OCR noise, linguistic variance, and rigid span-based constraints, and the need for manually annotated training data for each relevant annotation type. In this paper, we present the first case study applying Large Language Models (LLMs) to the eligibility examination process, shifting the paradigm toward a generative Information Extraction pipeline. Our approach decomposes the task into extraction, normalization, and interpretation, allowing for greater flexibility in handling noisy text and interleaved German-English content. We further introduce a value-based evaluation methodology using LLM-as-a-judge, which offers a more semantic assessment than location-based metrics. Our results demonstrate that LLM-based systems achieve high precision (up to 91%) in document-level eligibility, exhibiting a conservative operating profile that minimizes false acceptance.

We introduce a dataset of 32,534 double-marked real student responses to GCSE mock exams (GCSEs are the UK's national exams, taken at age ~16), spanning 328 questions across five subjects and including handwritten work. We test whether off-the-shelf large language models agree with examiners as closely as the two examiners agree with each other. We find that models overwhelmingly agree well with the examiner consensus across subjects, with the top performing models agreeing more closely with examiners than examiners agree with each other. Models achieve high scores for subjective tasks like English essay marking, as well as handling complex and messy handwritten Maths paper scripts. Agreement is uniform near the examiner line, and not massively discriminated by model size, providing cost-effective automated marking solutions.

Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT), as a key technology for personalized education, aims to accurately assess examinee proficiency by retrieving exercises dynamically matching current ability estimates. However, existing CAT research is constrained by limitations of static offline data and isolated component optimization. Restricted by partial labels in offline logs, researchers degrade the dynamic assessment process into static sequence prediction. Current research focuses on isolated perspectives, e.g., selection or diagnosis, neglecting the overall CAT interaction process. To address this, we propose AgentCAT, a Large Language Model-based multi-agent simulation system, to construct a high-fidelity benchmarking environment for dynamic testing. This framework comprises three modules: (1) The examinee agent with memory retrieval and Chain-of-Thought reasoning simulates responses based on cognitive profiles; (2) The selection agent uses coarse-to-fine bucketing and knowledge graph exploration to balance local difficulty and global coverage; (3) The supervisor uses dual-auditing and robust update to ensure convergence and validity. To validate the framework, we evaluated on two real-world datasets across three dimensions: macro-level ability convergence, micro-level interaction logic, and data sparsity resilience. Results show AgentCAT achieves effective ability estimation, and its selection strategy balances difficulty adaptation and instructional coherence, aligning with human pedagogical intuition.

Standardized examinations are typically treated as uniform syllabus coverage problems. We argue they are better understood as adversarial systems with stable latent cognitive structures diverging systematically from official syllabi. We introduce LearnOpt, which recovers this structure from historical question papers and generates personalized, time-bounded study plans. Applied to nine years of NEET questions (2016-2024, n=1,496), LearnOpt builds an exam knowledge graph from LLM-tagged questions, extracts a five-category latent skill distribution, and formulates study planning as a knapsack-variant optimization over prerequisite-aware subgraphs with Bayesian Knowledge Tracing. Central finding: NEET's latent skill distribution is stable within a syllabus regime (consecutive-year KL divergence 0.004-0.032 for 2016-2021, non-significant under permutation testing) but shifts significantly with NCERT's 2023 syllabus rationalization: pooling 2016-2021 (n=1,072) vs 2023-2024 (n=392) gives KL=0.040 (p=0.0005), with Elimination/Negation questions rising from ~20-29% to ~31-35%. Latent structure, while not permanently stationary, is piecewise stable, with shifts detectable and attributable to curricular events. Within either regime, subject predicts skill profile more strongly than year. An optimization evaluation, using one real and two synthetic mastery profiles, shows the skill-weighted objective produces a modest but real reordering of recommended topics over a mastery-conditioned frequency baseline. Applying the pipeline to JEE Advanced reveals a profile dominated by Multi-concept Integration (80.9% vs. 33.3% for NEET), with a JEE-vs-NEET divergence (KL=0.505) exceeding NEET's largest cross-subject divergence: exam tier shapes latent cognitive structure more than subject, which shapes it more than time within a regime. Code, knowledge graph, and annotated dataset are released publicly.

Correcting handwritten exams by hand is time-consuming and error-prone, particularly for large cohorts, while fully digital exams tend to force a didactic narrowing towards closed question formats. A practical middle ground keeps paper-based, problem-oriented tasks but records the assessment-relevant answers as single capital letters in a table that a machine can read. The open question is whether this reading can be made accurate and, above all, fair enough for unsupervised grading. Earlier automated approaches reached only about 88%--91% recognition -- too low -- and failed on the cases that matter most: answers placed outside the cell, crossed out, or written in cursive. We show that general-purpose vision-language foundation models (VLMs), which interpret the page rather than match pixel templates, close this gap. On a benchmark of 61 anonymised exams (3141 answer positions) the best model reaches 98.4% accuracy, well above the previous baseline. Crucially, we centre the evaluation on fairness: we distinguish false negatives (a correct answer marked wrong, which disadvantages the student) from false positives, and a lightweight prompt that supplies the reference solution as context lowers the false-negative rate to 0.58%. Under an exemplary grading scheme only three of the 61 exams would be graded worse, all caught by a student self-review step. Fully automated, fairness-aware exam grading at scale is therefore defensible; we release the anonymised benchmark to support reproducibility.

This paper examines the limitations of fully digital and partially digital e-assessment approaches in summative examinations in higher education. The analysis focuses on the didactic narrowing caused by closed question formats and on organizational, technical, and legal constraints that become particularly relevant in large student cohorts. As an alternative, the paper proposes a hybrid e-assessment approach that retains paper-based, problem-oriented examination tasks while enabling semi-automated grading. Assessment-relevant intermediate results are encoded in a structured answer format, entered by students by hand, and subsequently captured from table fields. The central technical bottleneck is reliable recognition of handwritten characters under realistic examination conditions. Recent vision-capable large language models, combined with a two-pass validation principle and comparison against a solution key, can reduce misclassifications and thereby improve the validity, fairness, and scalability of summative assessment.

Advanced Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) have demonstrated impressive performance in K-12 reasoning tasks, exhibiting great promise as intelligent tutors. Realizing this potential requires models to navigate real-world examinations effectively, yet most existing benchmarks fail to capture the complexity of authentic testing environments. Specifically, most datasets are static, prone to data contamination, and are often confined to restricted modalities, disciplines, and evaluation criteria. To address these issues, we introduce LiveK12Bench, a dynamic, holistic, multi-disciplinary benchmark designed to evaluate the reasoning abilities of LMMs in realistic examination scenarios. LiveK12Bench comprises 2K+ verified questions spanning Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology, sourced from the latest real-world exam papers and designed to grow over time. Our framework features several core innovations: 1) featuring an automated pipeline that continuously ingests and parses the latest examination papers to mitigate data leakage; and 2) proposing a novel `Mock Exam' evaluation scheme, which assesses the ability to complete end-to-end exams autonomously with accurate and efficient reasoning paths. Extensive experiments on 12 LMMs reveal that advanced models suffer substantial performance degradation under exam-realistic constraints: GPT-5's score drops from 79 to 53 (out of 100) when process rigor and efficiency are jointly evaluated. Our findings expose critical vulnerabilities, such as sensitivity to complex visual layouts, highlighting the gap between idealized reasoning capabilities and true educational readiness. Both code and dataset are publicly available.

Free-form legal essay evaluation in NLP treats expert inter-rater stability as a single ceiling number, and treats LLM-judge agreement with that ceiling as evidence of judge stability. We test both assumptions on the Thai bar examination through an identical-inputs protocol: three Bar Council-trained examiners (A, B, C) and a 26-LLM judge panel score the same 15 cross-graded answers from the same four inputs (question, official Bar Council grading regulation, gold answer, candidate answer). The headline finding is asymmetric. On 10 of 15 cells where the rubric prescribes both axes, all 29 raters converge in a tight band: panel agreement is universal. On the remaining 5 cells where the rubric does not prescribe how to grade a correct final answer that omits a decisive statutory citation, the human panel splits between two coherent readings (B/C majority at the upper rubric band, score 6-8; A minority at the lower band, score 1-2). The LLM judge population does not split symmetrically: 22 of 26 LLMs score in or near B/C's contested band, 3 sit in the regulation-silent middle gap, and only 1 (GPT-5.4 Nano) approaches A's band without consistently scoring within it. Zero LLMs in our 26-judge panel reproduce the minority human reading on the contested cells. The B/C-direction cluster spans every model size, vendor, and price tier we tested. An instrumented three-LLM anchor sub-panel (Claude 4.6 Opus, Gemini 3.1 Pro, GPT-5.4 Pro) carries determinism probes, input ablations, and bootstrap CIs, and reaches anchor panel $α= 0.77$ on the 15 cells against human-panel $α= 0.36$. The high LLM-panel $α$ reflects systematic convergence on the majority reading rather than balanced reproduction of both readings; a benchmark that selects its LLM judge by maximising agreement with a human reference panel will inherit this asymmetry by construction.

We introduce JMed48k, a multi-profession Japanese healthcare licensing benchmark for evaluating vision-language models. Built from official PDF materials released by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, JMed48k contains 48,862 exam questions and 20,142 images from 11 national licensing examinations between 2005 and 2025, with visual content annotated under an 8-type taxonomy. From this corpus, we derive JMed48k-Eval, a recent five-year evaluation subset with 12,484 scored questions, including 9,905 text-only questions and 2,579 questions with images. We evaluate 21 proprietary, open-source, and medical-specific models, reporting text-only and with-image performance separately. Because these subsets contain different questions, we further introduce a paired image-removal audit that evaluates questions with images before and after removing visual content to explore four answer-transition states. The audit shows that proprietary and open source models gain substantially from images, whereas medical-specific systems show limited observable use of visual evidence, with many correct answers persisting after image removal. Even among proprietary models, the net image-removal effect varies sevenfold across professions, from +5.7 points on Physician questions to +39.8 points on Public Health Nurse questions. We release JMed48k to support reproducible, profession-stratified evaluation of vision-language models in medical licensing settings.

As generative models achieve unprecedented visual quality, the gold standard for image evaluation remains traditional feature-distribution metrics (e.g., FID). However, these metrics are provably hindered by the closed-vocabulary bottleneck of outdated features and the assumptive bias of rigid parametric formulations. Recent alternatives exploit modern backbones to solve the feature bottleneck, yet continue to suffer from parametric limitations. To close this gap, we introduce APEX (Assumption-free Projection-based Embedding eXamination), a novel evaluation framework leveraging the Sliced Wasserstein Distance as a mathematically grounded, assumption-free similarity measure. APEX inherits effective scalability to high-dimensional spaces, as we prove with theoretical and empirical evidences. Moreover, APEX is embedding-agnostic and uses two open-vocabulary foundation models, CLIP and DINOv2, as feature extractors. Benchmarking APEX against established baselines reveals superior robustness to visual degradations. Additionally, we show that APEX metrics exhibit intra- and cross-dataset stability, ensuring highly stable evaluations on out-of-domain datasets.

Evaluating LLM-generated business ideas is often harder to scale than generating them. Unlike standard NLP benchmarks, business idea evaluation relies on multi-dimensional criteria such as feasibility, novelty, differentiation, user need, and market size, and expert judgments often disagree. This paper studies a methodological question raised by such disagreement: should an automatic judge approximate an aggregate consensus, or model evaluators individually? We introduce PBIG-DATA, a dataset of approximately 3,000 individual scores across 300 patent-grounded product ideas, provided by domain experts on six business-oriented dimensions: specificity, technical validity, innovativeness, competitive advantage, need validity, and market size. Analyses show substantial expert disagreement on fine-grained ordinal scores, while agreement is higher under coarse selection, suggesting structured heterogeneity rather than random noise. We then compare three judge configurations: a rubric-only zero-shot judge, an aggregate judge conditioned on mixed evaluator histories, and a personalized judge conditioned on the target evaluator's scoring history. Across dimensions and model sizes, personalized judges align more closely with the corresponding evaluator than aggregate judges, and evaluator agreement correlates with similarity of judge-generated reasoning only under personalized conditioning. These results indicate that pooled labels can be a fragile target in pluralistic evaluation settings and motivate evaluator-conditioned judge designs for business idea assessment.