Sign inGet started
Paper · arXiv

The Aftermath of DrawEduMath: Vision Language Models Underperform with Struggling Students and Misdiagnose Errors

Effective mathematics education requires identifying and responding to students' mistakes. For AI to support pedagogical applications, models must perform well across different levels of student proficiency. Our work provides an extensive, year-long snapshot of how 11 vision-language models (VLMs) perform on DrawEduMath, a QA benchmark involving real students' handwritten, hand-drawn responses to math problems. We find that models' weaknesses concentrate on a core component of math education: student error. All evaluated VLMs underperform when describing work from students who require more pedagogical help, and across all QA, they struggle the most on questions related to assessing studen...

AuthorsLi Lucy, Albert Zhang, Nathan Anderson et al.
Primary categorycs.CL
Published1 March 2026
Last updated at source1 March 2026
cs.CLcs.CVcs.CY
Embed this entry
<iframe src="https://silytics.si/embed/item/acbf3f58-755f-42f5-9108-0ff9cb649ed8" width="420" height="190" style="border:0" loading="lazy" title="Silytics entry"></iframe>

Free, no tracking. More about feeds and embeds.

Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 17 October 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.