Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Balancing Test Accuracy and Security in Computerized Adaptive Testing

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 2305.18312 v1 pith:PB6FWJZ3 submitted 2023-05-18 cs.CY cs.AIcs.LG

Balancing Test Accuracy and Security in Computerized Adaptive Testing

classification cs.CY cs.AIcs.LG
keywords testtestingaccuracyquestionadaptivebobcatcomputerizedexposure
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Computerized adaptive testing (CAT) is a form of personalized testing that accurately measures students' knowledge levels while reducing test length. Bilevel optimization-based CAT (BOBCAT) is a recent framework that learns a data-driven question selection algorithm to effectively reduce test length and improve test accuracy. However, it suffers from high question exposure and test overlap rates, which potentially affects test security. This paper introduces a constrained version of BOBCAT to address these problems by changing its optimization setup and enabling us to trade off test accuracy for question exposure and test overlap rates. We show that C-BOBCAT is effective through extensive experiments on two real-world adult testing datasets.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Vis-CoT: A Human-in-the-Loop Framework for Interactive Visualization and Intervention in LLM Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0

    An interactive chain-of-thought editor with prune and graft interventions reports large accuracy gains, but without error bars, code, or a comparison to existing editing tools.