Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Can Vision-Language Models Evaluate Handwritten Math?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2501.07244 v2 pith:WHDNYATK submitted 2025-01-13 cs.CV cs.CL

classification cs.CVcs.CL
keywords handwrittenvlmsfermatcontenterrormodelsabilitybenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent advancements in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have opened new possibilities in automatic grading of handwritten student responses, particularly in mathematics. However, a comprehensive study to test the ability of VLMs to evaluate and reason over handwritten content remains absent. To address this gap, we introduce FERMAT, a benchmark designed to assess the ability of VLMs to detect, localize and correct errors in handwritten mathematical content. FERMAT spans four key error dimensions - computational, conceptual, notational, and presentation - and comprises over 2,200 handwritten math solutions derived from 609 manually curated problems from grades 7-12 with intentionally introduced perturbations. Using FERMAT we benchmark nine VLMs across three tasks: error detection, localization, and correction. Our results reveal significant shortcomings in current VLMs in reasoning over handwritten text, with Gemini-1.5-Pro achieving the highest error correction rate (77%). We also observed that some models struggle with processing handwritten content, as their accuracy improves when handwritten inputs are replaced with printed text or images. These findings highlight the limitations of current VLMs and reveal new avenues for improvement. We release FERMAT and all the associated resources in the open-source to drive further research.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. MMRefine: Unveiling the Obstacles to Robust Refinement in Multimodal Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MMRefine introduces a six-scenario, six-error-type benchmark for multimodal math refinement, and its evaluation of 17 models shows open-source models largely lag closed ones, with spatial reasoning errors the hardest to fix.

Pith tools