Yahir Hernández-Mier, Marco Aurelio Nuño-Maganda, Said Polanco-Martagón, Guadalupe Acosta-Villarreal, Rubén Posada-Gómez
{"title":"Unsupervised Optical Mark Recognition on Answer Sheets for Massive Printed Multiple-Choice Tests.","authors":"Yahir Hernández-Mier, Marco Aurelio Nuño-Maganda, Said Polanco-Martagón, Guadalupe Acosta-Villarreal, Rubén Posada-Gómez","doi":"10.3390/jimaging11090308","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The large-scale evaluation of multiple-choice tests is a challenging task from the perspective of image processing. A typical instrument is a multiple-choice question test that employs an answer sheet with circles or squares. Once students have finished the test, the answer sheets are digitized and sent to a processing center for scoring. Operators compute each exam score manually, but this task requires considerable time. While it is true that mature algorithms exist for detecting circles under controlled conditions, they may fail in real-life applications, even when using controlled conditions for image acquisition of the answer sheets. This paper proposes a desktop application for optical mark recognition (OMR) on the scanned multiple-choice question (MCQ) test answer sheets. First, we compiled a set of answer sheet images corresponding to 6029 exams (totaling 564,040 four-option answers) applied in 2024 in Tamaulipas, Mexico. Subsequently, we developed an image-processing module that extracts answers from the answer sheets and an interface for operators to perform analysis by selecting the folder containing the exams and generating results in a tabulated format. We evaluated the image-processing module, achieving a percentage of 96.15% of exams graded without error and 99.95% of 4-option answers classified correctly. We obtained these percentages by comparing the answers generated through our system with those generated by human operators, who took an average of 2 min to produce the answers for a single answer sheet, while the automated version took an average of 1.04 s.</p>","PeriodicalId":37035,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Imaging","volume":"11 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12470569/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging11090308","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"IMAGING SCIENCE & PHOTOGRAPHIC TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The large-scale evaluation of multiple-choice tests is a challenging task from the perspective of image processing. A typical instrument is a multiple-choice question test that employs an answer sheet with circles or squares. Once students have finished the test, the answer sheets are digitized and sent to a processing center for scoring. Operators compute each exam score manually, but this task requires considerable time. While it is true that mature algorithms exist for detecting circles under controlled conditions, they may fail in real-life applications, even when using controlled conditions for image acquisition of the answer sheets. This paper proposes a desktop application for optical mark recognition (OMR) on the scanned multiple-choice question (MCQ) test answer sheets. First, we compiled a set of answer sheet images corresponding to 6029 exams (totaling 564,040 four-option answers) applied in 2024 in Tamaulipas, Mexico. Subsequently, we developed an image-processing module that extracts answers from the answer sheets and an interface for operators to perform analysis by selecting the folder containing the exams and generating results in a tabulated format. We evaluated the image-processing module, achieving a percentage of 96.15% of exams graded without error and 99.95% of 4-option answers classified correctly. We obtained these percentages by comparing the answers generated through our system with those generated by human operators, who took an average of 2 min to produce the answers for a single answer sheet, while the automated version took an average of 1.04 s.