Evaluating LLM-Generated Feedback on Handwritten Mathematics: Feedback Quality and Subsequent Exam Performance

Arne Vanhoyweghen; Vincent Holst; Melika Mobini; Lukas Van de Voorde; Tibo Vanleke; Andres Algaba; Sam Verboven; Marie-Anne Guerry; Filip Van Droogenbroeck; Vincent Ginis

arXiv · 2610.27881

Evaluating LLM-Generated Feedback on Handwritten Mathematics: Feedback Quality and Subsequent Exam Performance

Arne Vanhoyweghen·Vincent Holst·Melika Mobini·Lukas Van de Voorde·Tibo Vanleke·Andres Algaba·Sam Verboven·Marie-Anne Guerry·Filip Van Droogenbroeck·Vincent Ginis

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We evaluate the quality of feedback and practice exercises generated by GPT-5.1 from handwritten university mathematics answers and their grades, and examine whether receiving this feedback improves subsequent exam performance. We use six weekly bonus tests in an English (n=343) and a Dutch (n=236) cohort. Tests 1 and 3 used a crossover feedback design; otherwise, all attendees received feedback. To evaluate the feedback, six reviewers assessed 157 messages from three English-cohort tasks using six criteria scored from 0 to 3. The practice exercises received the highest proportion of strong ratings (95.5%), while diagnostic specificity (41.1%) and clarity and tone (33.4%) received fewer. Feedback for the lowest-scoring answers was rated as less actionable, suggesting that these students may need more targeted guidance from instructors. Comparisons of related exam questions showed mixed results, with no statistically significant differences after adjustment across four comparisons. Greater attendance and feedback exposure were associated with higher exam scores, but the contribution of feedback could not be separated from attendance and practice. Our findings show the potential of an integrated framework merging instructor guidance with automated feedback generation to provide personalised learning support at scale.

Explore related subjects

cs.CY

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Arne Vanhoyweghen, Vincent Holst, Melika Mobini, Lukas Van de Voorde, Tibo Vanleke, Andres Algaba, Sam Verboven, Marie-Anne Guerry, Filip Van Droogenbroeck, Vincent Ginis. 2026-10-20. Evaluating LLM-Generated Feedback on Handwritten Mathematics: Feedback Quality and Subsequent Exam Performance. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.27881

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is AI Widening the Wage Gap? A Hybrid Agentic Simulation for Labor Equity

Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping labor markets, yet its effects on wage distribution and the underlying mechanisms remain insufficiently understood. Conventional analytical approaches are limited in their ability to directly examine the dynamic evolution of worker behavior and income distribution under sustained AI shocks and counterfactual policy scenarios. To address this limitation, we present a hybrid agentic framework that aims to challenges of scalability of rule-based models and the limited explainability in LLM-agentic frameworks. Using this framework and sociodemographic data from China, we simulate changes in wage distribution under repeated AI shocks. The results show that both the average-wage ratio between workers in the top and bottom income deciles (T10/B10) and the Gini coefficient increase persistently, suggesting that AI shocks widen the wage gap and exacerbate income inequality. This pattern of a widening wage gap remains robust across alternative large language model decision engines and 30 Monte Carlo simulations. We further conduct counterfactual policy experiments. The results show that education subsidies targeted at low-income workers increase both the number of skill-upgrading attempts and the number of successful upgrades, with particularly pronounced improvements in the upskilling success probability of workers in the bottom income decile. These effects enable the policy to partially mitigate wage inequality. The proposed framework provides an interpretable simulation approach for examining the effects and mechanisms of AI shocks on wage distribution. It also offers policymakers a complementary analytical tool for evaluating policy interventions.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

A Global View of How LLMs Value Human Time

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as personal assistants; however, little is known about how they capture national-level preferences on a global scale. Given that "time" is a universal and representative concept, we examine LLMs' time preferences by varying only users' country and measuring the compensation LLMs deem appropriate for a 60-minute appointment delay. We then compare LLMs' responses with GDP per capita on Purchasing Power Parity (GDP_PPP), Mean Income, and a literature-based index (Patience Score). Our results across 193 countries and 5 LLMs demonstrate that people's time across the world is evaluated in noticeably different ways among LLMs, as well as varying levels of robustness under prompt variations. LLMs consistently recommend the highest compensation for Europe, but mostly the lowest for Africa. Based on GDP_PPP, LLMs underestimate the value of time for users living in Asia and South America. These findings indicate that geographical patterns are embedded in LLMs and may translate in different treatment in agentic settings.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Opening Knowledge Gaps Drives Scientific Progress

Knowledge production is often viewed as an endogenous process in which discovery arises through the recombination of existing theories, findings, and concepts. Yet not all recombinations are equally valuable, and identifying those that may prove most generative remains challenging. We propose that a crucial form of recombination occurs when linking concepts creates knowledge gaps---empty regions in the conceptual landscape that focus scientific attention on unexplored connections. Using computational topology, we develop a method to identify knowledge gaps in science at scale. In this framework, gaps form when new connections complete cycles in evolving networks of scientific concepts. We apply the method to 34,363,623 papers in Microsoft Academic Graph spanning 1900--2020. The main analyses use samples ranging from 8,643,571 to 31,983,201 papers. Compared with papers that introduce novel concept pairs without opening gaps, gap-opening papers have greater long-term citation impact, are more disruptive of prior work, and exhibit greater delayed recognition. Gap-opening papers receive fewer citations within five years of publication but more over twenty years, consistent with scientific communities needing time to recognize and develop newly opened research territories. Evidence for the generative capacity of gap-opening papers---as indicated by high citation impact and disruption---replicates in five additional databases (OpenAlex, the PubMed Knowledge Graph, Dimensions, American Physical Society journals, and United States patents) and across eight concept vocabularies, including several derived directly from text. Together, these results reveal a distinctive generative role for gap opening in scientific discovery.

cs.CY↗