REVIEW 2 cited by
Leveraging LLM-Respondents for Item Evaluation: a Psychometric Analysis
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
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Effective educational measurement relies heavily on the curation of well-designed item pools (i.e., possessing the right psychometric properties). However, item calibration is time-consuming and costly, requiring a sufficient number of respondents for the response process. We explore using six different LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Llama 2, Llama 3, Gemini-Pro, and Cohere Command R Plus) and various combinations of them using sampling methods to produce responses with psychometric properties similar to human answers. Results show that some LLMs have comparable or higher proficiency in College Algebra than college students. No single LLM mimics human respondents due to narrow proficiency distributions, but an ensemble of LLMs can better resemble college students' ability distribution. The item parameters calibrated by LLM-Respondents have high correlations (e.g. > 0.8 for GPT-3.5) compared to their human calibrated counterparts, and closely resemble the parameters of the human subset (e.g. 0.02 Spearman correlation difference). Several augmentation strategies are evaluated for their relative performance, with resampling methods proving most effective, enhancing the Spearman correlation from 0.89 (human only) to 0.93 (augmented human).
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
IRT-Router: Effective and Interpretable Multi-LLM Routing via Item Response Theory
An IRT-based router that models each LLM's latent ability and each query's difficulty outperforms RouterBench on cost-performance reward across ID and OOD benchmarks.
-
Do LLMs Agree on the Creativity Evaluation of Alternative Uses?
Four LLMs show high agreement when scoring and ranking alternative uses and do not favor their own outputs, but the accuracy benchmark is derived from the generation prompts rather than human judgment.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.