Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 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

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

classification cs.CL
keywords evaluationquestionscambridgecandidatemultiple-choicepre-testsystemstask
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
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)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. A Multi-Agent Framework for Feature-Constrained Difficulty Control in Reading Comprehension Item Generation

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    MAFIG is a multi-agent framework that uses LLM agents and evaluators to generate reading comprehension items with significantly higher adherence to specified feature constraints than single-agent baselines.

  2. LLMs Struggle to Measure What Distinguishes Students of Different Proficiency Levels: A Study of Item Discrimination in Reading Comprehension Assessment

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    LLMs achieve maximum Spearman correlations of 0.152 (direct) and 0.241 (response-based) with human item discrimination values, showing non-random but unreliable signal for distinguishing student proficiency.

  3. Response-free item difficulty modelling for multiple-choice items with fine-tuned transformers: Component-wise representation and multi-task learning

    cs.CL 2026-05 conditional novelty 5.0

    Fine-tuned transformers with multi-task learning recover substantial wording-derived signal for item difficulty at small sample sizes typical in applied testing.