One email each morning — yesterday's AI, sortedGet it in your inbox

METAL LAB

Measuring the Partial-Credit Gap: A Strict Benchmark on Vietnam's 2025 Convex Marking Scheme

arXiv:2608.183362026-08-20

Grading AI exams the wrong way inflates their scores: a benchmark built on Vietnam's real high-school marking rules

Vietnam's 2025 reformed high-school graduation exam grades one section with a non-proportional step scale: getting 3 out of 4 true/false statements right earns 0.50 points, not the 0.75 a normal accuracy score would give. Existing AI benchmarks ignore this and just report plain accuracy, which overstates competence the government itself would not certify. The researchers built THPT-Ladder from 632 real exam items across 21 exams, scored eight models under the official rule, and found that accuracy alone cannot predict the actual mark.

What they did

  1. Part II of Vietnam's 2025-reformed exam asks candidates to judge four true/false statements per question, paying a convex ladder of 0, 0.10, 0.25, 0.50, or 1.00 points depending on how many are correct — three correct pays 0.50, not the proportional 0.75.
  2. Because this section is worth 4.00 of the exam's 10.00 points, scoring it with ordinary statement-by-statement accuracy — as standard benchmarks do — always inflates the score above what the ministry actually awards.
  3. The team built THPT-Ladder: 632 items from 21 official exams across 11 subjects, graded with the ministry's exact published answer keys and rules, and compared model scores to over a million real candidates' published score distributions to compute percentiles.
  4. Across eight models (three open-weight, five closed), the official ladder paid 0.020 to 0.159 points less per Part II question than proportional credit would. For Qwen3.5-27B on the 2025 History exam, this dropped its standing from the 90th to the 77th percentile.
  5. Models with identical accuracy could receive very different marks depending on how their errors were distributed across questions; at Claude Sonnet 5's accuracy level, scores ranged from 0.869 to 0.932 points per question.
  6. A fixed guess string (DDSS), chosen without reading any question, exploited imbalances in the official answer keys to earn 11.07% to 24.25% of an exam's total score.
Table 1: Official structure (Decision 764) and corpus coverage.
structureitems
SubjectIIIIIIrnd20252026Fig.
Biology18462.350282828
Chemistry18462.35028289
Economics & Law24402.72528280
English40002.50040400
Geography18462.35028288
History24402.72528281
Informatics244a02.72530300
Mathematics12461.975222214
Physics18462.35028284
Technology (Agri.)24402.72556284
Technology (Ind.)24402.72528n.p.12
total632 items80
Table 2: Eight models on the 632 scored items: three open-weight, then five closed.
Model% avail.III stmtII pts/qshf/qIII
Qwen3.5-27B93.80.9730.9260.8840.0420.917
Qwen3.5-9B90.70.9650.8960.8300.0660.850
InternVL3.5-8B69.30.8380.7560.5970.1590.183
Claude Opus 597.00.9880.9730.9490.0240.950
GPT-5.597.00.9880.9670.9480.0200.950
Claude Sonnet 593.60.9770.9350.8810.0540.917
Claude Opus 4.892.90.9750.9200.8670.0520.917
Claude Haiku 4.582.90.9340.8420.7350.1080.567

Why it matters

Simplifying an exam's grading rule into plain accuracy can make an AI model look like it passed an exam it would have actually failed under real rules. This work quantifies exactly how much that substitution distorts reported competence, which matters for anyone designing or trusting exam-based AI benchmarks.

Terms in this paper

  • convex marking scheme · a grading rule where points don't scale proportionally with correct answers but jump or get compressed at certain thresholds
  • partial-credit gap (shortfall) · the difference between the score a proportional accuracy metric would give and the actual score under the step-based official rule
  • percentile · a rank showing what fraction of real test-takers a given score outperforms
  • open-weight model · an AI model whose weight files are released publicly so anyone can download and run it
  • Decision 764 · the official 2025 ruling by Vietnam's Ministry of Education and Training that defines the new exam formats and marking rules

Original abstract (English)

When evaluating language models on human exams, benchmarks typically score each response as right or wrong and report the overall accuracy. This approach assumes that partial knowledge is worth proportional credit, an assumption that fails when an examination uses a non-additive grading scheme. The 2025 reform of Vietnam's National High School Graduation Examination demonstrates the cost of this substitution. In Part II of the exam, candidates eval

Authors · Nguyen Quoc Hung, Nguyen Dang Minh, Le Nhu Quynh, Tran Khanh Linh, Nguyen Kieu Linh

Read on arXiv

Latest papers

All papers →

Latest from METAL LAB