The paper proposes a response‑free method for estimating difficulty of reading‑comprehension multiple‑choice items by fine‑tuning a transformer on item wording. It introduces two extensions to a baseline joint‑encoding model: a component‑wise variant that encodes passage, question, and options separately, and a multi‑task variant that adds a question‑answering auxiliary task. Experiments on a corpus of nearly 30,000 items show that both extensions outperform the baseline, especially the multi‑task variant across all metrics and the component‑wise variant in rank ordering, even with limited training data.
arXiv:2511. 21692v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We investigate how well large language models (LLMs) generalize across different task difficulties, a key question for effective data curation and evaluation.
arXiv:2606. 28186v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Predicting human item difficulty is central to educational assessment, where reliable estimates support fairness and effective test construction.
arXiv:2607. 28634v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The estimation of item difficulty plays a key role in both formative assessment and large-scale high-stakes summative assessments.
The paper proposes a model-based evaluation framework that merges multidimensional item response theory (IRT) with question context embeddings to predict large language model (LLM) performance on unseen questions. By representing LLMs with latent capability profiles and incorporating question content to inform item characteristics, the approach improves prediction accuracy over model-free baselines in within-scenario settings and offers a richer description of capability variation than unidimensional models. However, the study also finds that this generalizability does not reliably extend to cross-scenario shifts, indicating a key limitation for broader application.
arXiv:2601. 02580v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Traditional methods for determining assessment item parameters, such as difficulty and discrimination, rely heavily on expensive field testing to collect student performance data for Item Response Theory (IRT) calibration.
arXiv:2609.07309v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Robustness evaluation of large language models (LLMs) remains a critical challenge, particularly in assessing their sensitivity to perturbations in i...
arXiv:2606. 08988v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automatic Question Difficulty Estimation (AQDE) holds growing promise for educational assessment because it has the potential to yield difficulty estimates that are competitive with expert judgment, while helping reduce the time and financial burden associated with pilot administrations and scaling to digital testing contexts.
arXiv:2510. 05969v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed on complex reasoning tasks, yet little is known about their ability to internally evaluate problem difficulty, which is an essential capability for adaptive reasoning and efficient resource allocation.
arXiv:2606. 06906v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Long-context question answering (QA) remains challenging for smaller language models even when answer-bearing evidence is already present in the input.
arXiv:2501. 06286v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Multi-hop question answering requires a system to identify and integrate evidence distributed across documents, yet large language models remain vulnerable to irrelevant context.
The paper introduces the concept of LLM‑specific utility, defining it as the performance gain a target large language model (LLM) achieves when provided with a passage compared to answering without evidence. A benchmark of utilitarian passages is built for four LLMs (Qwen3‑8B/14B/32B and Llama 3.1‑8B) across three QA datasets, revealing that each model benefits most from its own tailored evidence and that evidence optimized for other models is consistently suboptimal. The authors also create SpecUBench, a benchmark for LLM‑specific utility judgment, and show that current utility‑aware retrieval methods largely capture model‑agnostic usefulness, struggling to estimate LLM‑specific utility. "whyItMatters":"The study demonstrates that retrieval‑augmented generation must consider model‑specific evidence selection to truly improve LLM performance, highlighting a gap in existing utility‑aware methods."
arXiv:2602. 12424v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Benchmarks establish a standardized evaluation framework to systematically assess the performance of large language models (LLMs), facilitating objective comparisons and driving advancements in the field.