Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Analysis of the Cambridge Multiple-Choice Questions Reading Dataset with a Focus on Candidate Response Distribution

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 2306.13047 v4 pith:EANQNGOS submitted 2023-06-22 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords evaluationquestionscambridgecandidatemultiple-choicepre-testsystemstask
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Multiple choice exams are widely used to assess candidates across a diverse range of domains and tasks. To moderate question quality, newly proposed questions often pass through pre-test evaluation stages before being deployed into real-world exams. Currently, this evaluation process is manually intensive, which can lead to time lags in the question development cycle. Streamlining this process via automation can significantly enhance efficiency, however, there's a current lack of datasets with adequate pre-test analysis information. In this paper we analyse a subset of the public Cambridge Multiple-Choice Questions Reading Database released by Cambridge University Press & Assessment; a multiple-choice comprehension dataset of questions at different target levels, with corresponding candidate selection distributions. We introduce the task of candidate distribution matching, propose several evaluation metrics for the task, and demonstrate that automatic systems trained on RACE++ can be leveraged as baselines for our task. We further demonstrate that these automatic systems can be used for practical pre-test evaluation tasks such as detecting underperforming distractors, where our detection systems can automatically identify poor distractors that few candidates select.

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. Do LLMs Give Psychometrically Plausible Responses in Educational Assessments?

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Zero-shot LLMs, even after temperature calibration, give response distributions that correlate only weakly with human item-facility and IRT curves, so they are not yet usable as pilot test-takers.

Pith tools