Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 166 references

Automated item evaluation: Predicting item acceptance and rejection using LLM-generated critiques

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The authors show that a text-only classifier can predict whether a test item will be permanently rejected, with a fusion of raw text and LLM critiques reaching AUC .80.

desk verdict Solid empirical study of text-based item rejection prediction on a large operational item bank; the label is messier than the abstract implies, but the core feasibility claim survives and deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06609 v2 pith:AKSOETQK submitted 2026-08-06 cs.AI

Hotaka Maeda , Yikai Lu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords automateditemevaluationrejectionpredictionacceptanceLLM-generatedcritiquesDeBERTaV3Qwen3educationalassessmenttextclassification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether a single text-based model can judge whether a test item is good enough for operational use, using the item's final fate—'permanently rejected' versus accepted—as the ground truth. On 52,759 English language arts and mathematics items from a large-scale testing program, a fusion model that combines DeBERTaV3-large representations of raw item text with representations of Qwen3-generated two-sentence critiques reached Accuracy=.75, F1=.64, AUC=.80, Sensitivity=.64, Specificity=.81. The paper argues this makes text-based automated item evaluation feasible in some areas and a practical pre-screen for human review, especially in automated item generation where items are cheap to produce. It also reports clear limits: bias, sensitivity, fairness, and accessibility rejections are poorly detected, and math screening is much stronger than ELA screening.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the historical rejection label: 'permanently removed from future operational use' records the net outcome of content review, psychometric review, bias review, and field testing in one binary code, which the paper treats as an all-encompassing quality measure. The machinery that carries the prediction is a fusion of two DeBERTaV3-large encoders: one fine-tuned via LoRA on raw item text, the other fine-tuned on two-sentence critiques generated by Qwen3-0.6B with thinking mode, with final-layer representations concatenated and fed through a 128-dimensional hidden layer to a sigmoid head trained with class-weighted cross-entropy. The critique step is what makes the approach distinctive—the decoder supplies broad world knowledge, the encoder supplies precise task-specific prediction—and incorporating critiques improved sensitivity across nearly all rejection reasons. Because item text excludes passages, images, tables, rubrics, and metadata, the model can only learn from the item stem and options themselves.

What would settle it

Reclassify the 80% of rejected items that currently have no usable comments using developer logs or an expert audit, then compute fusion-model AUC on content-related rejections alone; if AUC stays at .80 the label is content-driven, but if it falls toward chance the model has learned administrative label noise and the transfer claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the operational decision 'accept or permanently reject' can be predicted from item text alone with practically useful accuracy, and that this single label acts as a near-comprehensive measure of item quality because accepted items had to pass content review and field testing. The strongest contribution is a fusion model that takes the final-layer representation of a DeBERTaV3-large encoder fine-tuned on raw item text, concatenates it with the representation of a second DeBERTaV3-large encoder fine-tuned on Qwen3-0.6B-generated critiques, and passes the 2048-dimensional vector through a 128-dimensional layer to a sigmoid rejection-probability head. This fusion outperformed zero-shot classification, raw text-only, and critique-only models on the aggregate test set, with math items predicted far more accurately (F1=.73, AUC=.86) than ELA items (F1=.51, AUC=.72). The paper concludes that text-based automated item evaluation is feasible in some areas and offers a practical tool for reducing manual review and field-testing burden, while cautioning that human review remains indispensable for bias, sensitivity, fairness, and accessibility flags.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the administrative label 'permanently rejected' is a coherent, content-related measure of item quality, and that accepted and rejected items form comparable populations; if that label mostly reflects data-integrity issues, passage-set decisions, or whether an item was ever field tested, the model's performance will not transfer to new AI-generated items.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single text-based classifier can serve as a cheap pre-screen before human review, catching most future rejections before they happen when the decision threshold is lowered.
  • In automated item generation contexts, where producing items is far cheaper than evaluating them, a threshold of .25 raises overall sensitivity to .90 (ELA .88, math .91), making the model a practical filter for large item batches.
  • Fusing LLM-generated critiques with raw item text improves detection across nearly all rejection reasons, with the largest gains for incomplete math items and content-related rejections.
  • The model is not a substitute for human review of bias, sensitivity, fairness, or accessibility: sensitivity on those rejections is only .27, and 91% of them are ELA items.
  • Because prediction is substantially stronger for math than ELA, ELA item screening may require passage text, which was excluded from this study, to be included in future models.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper's claims, the same label-mixing issue implies that the model's historical-label performance may overstate its transfer to brand-new AI-generated items that have no field-testing history at all.
  • The correlation between predicted rejection probability and difficulty (proportion correct r=-.30) suggests part of the model's signal is a 'too hard' proxy; isolating difficulty from content quality could raise ELA performance.
  • The weak sentiment correlations (r=-.05 to -.14) suggest the critiques help through decoded reasoning content rather than tone, so using a larger decoder than Qwen3-0.6B may amplify the fusion gain.
  • A direct test of the transfer claim would be to run the fusion model on a batch of AI-generated items whose true quality is independently established by expert review and compare the resulting AUC with the .80 achieved on historical labels.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an automated item evaluation (AIE) approach: using historical administrative accept/reject labels from a large standardized testing program (52,759 ELA and math items, 34% rejected), the authors fine-tune DeBERTaV3-large classifiers on raw item text, on Qwen3-generated two-sentence critiques, and on a fusion of both. On a random held-out test split, the fusion model achieves Accuracy=.75, F1=.64, AUC=.80, Sensitivity=.64, Specificity=.81, with notably better performance for math (AUC=.86) than ELA (AUC=.72). Lowering the decision threshold to .25 raises sensitivity to .90 at the cost of specificity (.42). The paper also analyzes sensitivity by rejection reason, correlates predictions with psychometric statistics, and examines critique sentiment. The authors conclude that text-based AIE is feasible in some areas and may reduce the burden of manual review and field testing, while cautioning that bias/sensitivity/fairness/accessibility issues remain difficult to detect, especially for ELA.

Significance. If the reported results hold, the paper offers a useful empirical demonstration that a single text-based classifier can partially screen items before human review, complementing prior work that predicts individual item properties such as difficulty. The study has several concrete strengths: a large real-world item bank, standard held-out evaluation, class-weighted loss, LoRA fine-tuning, and a transparent threshold analysis. The reason-level analysis, although based on limited data, is an honest attempt to unpack what the model can and cannot detect. The fusion of raw text with LLM-generated critiques is a sensible and reproducible architecture, and the authors are careful to note many limitations, including the exclusion of passages/images and the poor detection of bias-related rejections. These strengths make the paper a potentially valuable contribution to the AIE/AIG literature, provided the target construct and evaluation protocol are tightened.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3.1, §4.2] The central label 'permanently rejected' is a heterogeneous administrative outcome, not a content-related quality construct. Section 3.1 states rejection can occur before or after field testing or after operational use, and includes data integrity problems; Appendix A lists categories such as 'Passage' (rejection driven by the passage set), 'Abandoned' (sometimes no content issues), 'Incomplete' (never reached field testing), and 'Non-content' (corrupt data, import errors). At the same time, accepted items are a selected population: non-rejected items that were never field tested are excluded, so accepted items all survived field testing. This asymmetry means the model may learn correlates of administrative fate or field-testing availability rather than intrinsic quality. The claim in the Discussion that the model is 'nearly comprehensive' is therefore overstated. Please reframe the target as 'administrative rejection' or, preferably, restrict the positive class to content-related reasons (content, psychometric, bias, scoring) and report performance with and without passage/abandoned/incomplete/non-content rejections.
  2. [§4.1, Appendix E] Rejection-reason sensitivity is estimated from only 19% of rejected test items; 80% of rejected items have no usable comment and 1% are ambiguous. Figure 3 reports N per category, but the headline sensitivity of .64 is dominated by the 'no data' group, whose true reasons are unknown. This undermines the claim that the model detects 'most rejection reasons' in a meaningful way. Please report model performance separately for items with and without rejection comments, and include confidence intervals for each reason-level sensitivity. If items with no comments differ systematically (e.g., older items, different rejection pipeline), the reason-level analysis may be unrepresentative.
  3. [§3.1, §4] The recommendation to use a .25 threshold in AIG contexts is not supported by a cost analysis. At that threshold, overall precision is .45, meaning over half of the items flagged for human review would be accepted items; whether this tradeoff is preferable depends on the relative costs of reviewing false positives versus missing true rejections. The paper states that generating items is cheaper than evaluating them, but a human review still incurs cost on every flagged item. Please provide a concrete cost model or at least report the expected number of false positives per 100 flagged items and discuss how this affects the practical screening use case.
  4. [Table 1] The evaluation uses a random split of items, which does not reflect the intended deployment scenario of screening newly generated items. Items sharing a stimulus are grouped, but there is no temporal or source split; the model may exploit item-bank-specific artifacts that do not transfer to new AIG items. Please add a time-based split (e.g., train on older items, test on newer ones) or at least report results by rejection stage (pre-field vs. post-field) and by item source if available. Additionally, the headline comparisons (fusion vs. text-only, math vs. ELA) are reported without confidence intervals or significance tests; bootstrap confidence intervals for AUC and F1 would strengthen the feasibility claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5] There is a typo: 'exluded' should be 'excluded'.
  2. [§5] The sentence 'This shows the value of item difficulty prediction research...' is fine, but a few lines above, 'difficultyitems' appears to be a missing-space typo; please check the manuscript for similar spacing errors.
  3. [§3.2.2] The sentence 'Therefore, including proportion correct, item-total correlation, all item statistics are relative to the subject and grade' is grammatically incomplete; please rephrase for clarity.
  4. [Table 1, Figure 2] It would help to add 95% confidence intervals to Table 1 and to state explicitly in the Figure 2 caption whether the curves are smoothed; currently the reader cannot tell if the plotted lines are empirical or fitted.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the feasibility claim rests on held-out test predictions against an external zero-shot baseline; label-mix issues are construct-validity threats, not circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is empirical and self-contained. Fine-tuned DeBERTa text-only, critique-only, and fusion models are trained on a random 80% split and evaluated on held-out 10% test data (Sections 3.1-3.3, Table 1); no parameter is fitted to the test labels, and no reported test metric is a re-statement of a training objective. The Qwen3 critiques are generated from item text plus subject, grade, and standards without access to status labels (Appendix C), so the critique pathway is not a label-derived input. The zero-shot baseline provides an external, non-fitted comparison. Self-citations (Maeda 2025; Maeda and Lu 2025, 2026) appear only in related-work context for difficulty and DIF prediction and are not load-bearing for the accept/reject classification claim. The main concern--that the administrative 'permanently rejected' label mixes content, psychometric, administrative, and non-content reasons (Sections 3.1, 3.3.1, Appendix A)--is a construct-validity and external-validity threat, not a circularity: the model honestly predicts the historical label on held-out items, as the reason-level sensitivity analysis in Section 4.2 makes transparent. The paper's statement that 'this single label becomes an all-encompassing measure of item quality' is an interpretive assumption, but the predictive result does not depend on that assumption for its internal validity. No equation, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or self-citation chain reduces the central result to its inputs. Separately, the Section 1 assertion that 'no studies have predicted item acceptance and rejection as an AIE method' is difficult to reconcile with the paper's own reference to Yaneva et al. (2020), 'Predicting item survival for multiple choice questions in a high-stakes medical exam,' but that is a novelty/attribution concern, not a circular derivation, and does not affect the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or theoretical entities. Its burden is concentrated in the label definition: administrative acceptance and rejection are treated as ground truth quality, while the accepted class is restricted to field-tested survivors. The free parameters are model and threshold choices rather than fitted scientific constants.

free parameters (3)
  • Classification cutoff threshold = 0.25 (with default 0.5)
    Headline high-sensitivity numbers (overall sensitivity .90, ELA .88, math .91) come from lowering the decision threshold to .25 after observing test-set tradeoffs. This is a post hoc operating point, not a principled parameter.
  • LoRA rank and alpha per model = rank 32/alpha 64 for text model, rank 50/alpha 100 for critique model
    Hand-chosen hyperparameters with no tuning curve or ablation; the paper reports only the final configuration.
  • Training hyperparameters = learning rate 5e-5, epochs 3, batch size 8, max token length 512, dropout 0.1, weight decay 0.01
    Fixed by the authors and not varied in any reported sensitivity analysis.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Acceptance in the operational item bank, after expert review and field testing, is a valid comprehensive 'item quality' label; permanent rejection is a coherent negative label.
    The entire supervised setup in Section 3.1 treats the administrative status as ground truth. The authors partly acknowledge confounds like passage-level decisions and data-integrity issues, but the central claim inherits this label validity.
  • domain assumption Items excluded because they were neither rejected nor field tested are ignorable when learning the acceptance distribution.
    Section 3.1 excludes non-rejected, non-field-tested items, so accepted items all passed field testing while rejected items include pre-field-test rejections. The stated deployment target, screening new AIG items, is precisely the excluded population.
  • standard math The 2PL and GPCM IRT models provide comparable difficulty and discrimination parameters across subjects and grades.
    Invoked in Section 3.4 to support the difficulty and discrimination correlations, after standardizing theta within subject and grade.
  • domain assumption Claude-classified rejection reasons, with manual fixes, are accurate enough for per-reason sensitivity estimates.
    Section 3.3.1 uses LLM classification plus manual fixes for rejection reason labels, but no inter-rater reliability or validation sample is reported, and only 19% of rejected test items had usable comments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Automated item evaluation: Predicting item acceptance and rejection using LLM-generated critiques." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AKSOETQK

@misc{pith2026260806609,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Automated item evaluation: Predicting item acceptance and rejection using LLM-generated critiques},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AKSOETQK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06609}
}
read the original abstract

Automated item evaluation (AIE) refers to the use of computational methods to assess item quality without requiring manual expert review or field testing of the items under evaluation. We aimed to build a near-comprehensive AIE model by predicting item acceptance and rejection from item text using historical rejection data from a large-scale standardized testing program. The dataset contained 52,759 English language arts (ELA) and mathematics items with 34% permanently rejected from future operational use. Rejection reasons included poor psychometric properties, content issues, bias and sensitivity concerns, and non-content issues. We fine-tuned a DeBERTaV3-large classifier on raw item text, a second DeBERTa classifier on Qwen3-generated item critiques, and a fusion model combining representations from both. The fusion model achieved the strongest overall performance (Accuracy = .75, F1 = .64, AUC = .80, Sensitivity = .64, Specificity = .81). Prediction for math (F1 = .73, AUC = .86) was considerably more accurate than ELA (F1 = .51, AUC = .72). Lowering the decision threshold from .5 to .25 raised average sensitivity for ELA and math to .88 and .91, while reducing specificity to .31 and .56, respectively, which may be preferable in automated item generation contexts where generating items is cheaper than evaluating them. Incorporating item critiques alongside raw item text improved performance across most rejection reasons. The model assigned higher rejection probabilities to more difficult items. However, the fusion model struggled to identify items flagged for bias, sensitivity, fairness, or accessibility, especially for ELA. These findings suggest that text-based AIE is feasible in some areas and may offer a practical tool for reducing the burden of manual review and field testing, while also underscoring the importance of human review for items with fairness concerns.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06609 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Cutoff threshold analysis for fusion model (raw text + critique) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

166 extracted references · 14 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    International Journal of Research in Marketing , year =

    Hartmann, Jochen and Heitmann, Mark and Siebert, Christian and Schamp, Christina , title =. International Journal of Research in Marketing , year =

  2. [2]

    Proceedings of the 2024 AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , series =

    Current Evaluation Methods are a Bottleneck in Automatic Question Generation , author =. Proceedings of the 2024 AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , series =. 2024 , publisher =

    2024

  3. [3]

    Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , volume =

    Gorgun, Guher and Bulut, Okan , title =. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , volume =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12663 , url =. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/emip.12663 , abstract =

    doi:10.1111/emip.12663

  4. [4]

    and Pashley, Peter J

    van der Linden, Wim J. and Pashley, Peter J. Item Selection and Ability Estimation in Adaptive Testing. Computerized Adaptive Testing: Theory and Practice. 2000. doi:10.1007/0-306-47531-6_1

    doi:10.1007/0-306-47531-6_1

  5. [5]

    2020 , doi =

    Peng, Fang , title =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  6. [6]

    Incompressible Knowledge Probes: Estimating Black-Box

    Bojie Li , year=. Incompressible Knowledge Probes: Estimating Black-Box. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.24827 , archivePrefix=

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    2025 , eprint=

    Prompting Strategies for Language Model-Based Item Generation in K-12 Education: Bridging the Gap Between Small and Large Language Models , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  8. [8]

    Journal of Educational Data Mining , volume=

    Towards design-loop adaptivity: identifying items for revision , author=. Journal of Educational Data Mining , volume=

Show all 166 references
  1. [9]

    The Routledge International Handbook of Automated Essay Evaluation , pages=

    Automated short-response scoring for automated item generation in science assessments , author=. The Routledge International Handbook of Automated Essay Evaluation , pages=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  2. [10]

    Using generated rubrics to provide a window into item evaluation with multi-agent

    Wang, Yu and Gopalakrishnan, Madhumitha and Bergner, Yoav , booktitle=. Using generated rubrics to provide a window into item evaluation with multi-agent. 2025 , organization=

    2025

  3. [11]

    Automatic Item Generation, Evaluation, and Scale Construction of Non-Cognitive Measures with Generative Language Models , booktitle =

    Yu, Martin C and Burke, Maura I , editor =. Automatic Item Generation, Evaluation, and Scale Construction of Non-Cognitive Measures with Generative Language Models , booktitle =. 2026 , month =. doi:10.1093/9780197807309.003.0010 , url =

    2026 doi

  4. [12]

    Electronics , VOLUME =

    Prentzas, Jim and Binopoulou, Ariadni , TITLE =. Electronics , VOLUME =. 2025 , NUMBER =

    2025

  5. [13]

    and Monday, Onoja Abah , title =

    Oluoke, Omopekunola Moses and Gorbacheva, Anna M. and Monday, Onoja Abah , title =. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education , year =

  6. [14]

    International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education , volume=

    A review of automatic item generation techniques leveraging large language models , author=. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  7. [15]

    Advances in Health Sciences Education , volume=

    Feasibility assurance: a review of automatic item generation in medical assessment , author=. Advances in Health Sciences Education , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  8. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276 , archivePrefix=

    OpenAI , year=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.21276 , archivePrefix=

    arXiv

  9. [18]

    Youden, W. J. , title =. Cancer , year =. doi:10.1002/1097-0142(1950)3:1<32::aid-cncr2820030106>3.0.co;2-3 , pmid =

    1950 doi

  10. [19]

    2023 , journal=

    Distilling Step-by-Step! Outperforming Larger Language Models with Less Training Data and Smaller Model Sizes , author=. 2023 , journal=

    2023

  11. [20]

    Two-Stage Reasoning-Infused Learning: Improving Classification with

    Mads Henrichsen and Rasmus Krebs , year=. Two-Stage Reasoning-Infused Learning: Improving Classification with. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.00214 , archivePrefix=

    arXiv

  12. [21]

    Reasoning and Sampling-Augmented MCQ Difficulty Prediction via

    Wanyong Feng and Peter Tran and Stephen Sireci and Andrew Lan , year=. Reasoning and Sampling-Augmented MCQ Difficulty Prediction via. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08551 , archivePrefix=

    arXiv

  13. [22]

    2025 , howpublished =

    Anthropic , title =. 2025 , howpublished =

    2025

  14. [23]

    2026 , journal=

    Self-Distilled Reasoner: On-Policy Self-Distillation for Large Language Models , author=. 2026 , journal=

    2026

  15. [24]

    2024 , journal=

    On-Policy Distillation of Language Models: Learning from Self-Generated Mistakes , author=. 2024 , journal=

    2024

  16. [25]

    2025 , journal=

    Small Language Models: Survey, Measurements, and Insights , author=. 2025 , journal=

    2025

  17. [26]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.18562 , year=

    Estimating Item Difficulty with Large Language Models as Experts , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.18562 , year=

  18. [27]

    Review of educational research , volume=

    Developing, analyzing, and using distractors for multiple-choice tests in education: A comprehensive review , author=. Review of educational research , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  19. [28]

    educational measurement: issues and practice , volume=

    The longer-term impact of COVID-19 on K--12 student learning and assessment , author=. educational measurement: issues and practice , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  20. [29]

    2025 , journal=

    Text-Based Approaches to Item Alignment to Content Standards in Large-Scale Reading & Writing Tests , author=. 2025 , journal=

    2025

  21. [30]

    Humanities and Social Sciences Communications , volume=

    Rater variability and reliability of constructed response questions in New York state high-stakes tests of English language arts and mathematics: implications for educational assessment policy , author=. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  22. [31]

    Journal of Development and Social Sciences , volume=

    Item Discrimination of Intelligence Test Items: A Quality Assurance Test for an Assessment Tool , author=. Journal of Development and Social Sciences , volume=

  23. [32]

    Haladyna and Steven M

    Thomas M. Haladyna and Steven M. Downing and Michael C. Rodriguez , title =. Applied Measurement in Education , volume =. 2002 , doi =

    2002

  24. [33]

    Haladyna and Steven M

    Thomas M. Haladyna and Steven M. Downing , title =. Applied Measurement in Education , volume =. 1989 , doi =

    1989

  25. [34]

    Educational and Psychological Measurement , year =

    Maeda, Hotaka and Lu, Yikai , title =. Educational and Psychological Measurement , year =. doi:10.1177/00131644261460779 , url =

    doi

  26. [35]

    2026 , journal=

    Efficient Detection of Bad Benchmark Items with Novel Scalability Coefficients , author=. 2026 , journal=

    2026

  27. [36]

    Predicting Item Survival for Multiple Choice Questions in a High-Stakes Medical Exam

    Yaneva, Victoria and Ha, Le An and Baldwin, Peter and Mee, Janet. Predicting Item Survival for Multiple Choice Questions in a High-Stakes Medical Exam. Proceedings of the Twelfth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference. 2020

    2020

  28. [37]

    2025 , journal=

    The Impact of Item-Writing Flaws on Difficulty and Discrimination in Item Response Theory , author=. 2025 , journal=

    2025

  29. [38]

    Advances in Health Sciences Education , volume=

    A suggestive approach for assessing item quality, usability and validity of Automatic Item Generation , author=. Advances in Health Sciences Education , volume=

  30. [39]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06465 , year =

    Ye Ma , title =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.06465 , year =

    arXiv

  31. [40]

    2025 , journal=

    Qwen3 Technical Report , author=. 2025 , journal=

    2025

  32. [41]

    Journal of Educational Measurement , year=

    Using item parameter predictions for reducing calibration sample requirements—A case study based on a high-stakes admission test , author=. Journal of Educational Measurement , year=

  33. [42]

    2023 , journal=

    Kosmos-2: Grounding Multimodal Large Language Models to the World , author=. 2023 , journal=

    2023

  34. [43]

    2025 , journal=

    OneLLM: One Framework to Align All Modalities with Language , author=. 2025 , journal=

    2025

  35. [44]

    Information Fusion , volume=

    A comprehensive survey on regularization strategies in machine learning , author=. Information Fusion , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  36. [45]

    2025 , journal=

    Multimodal Alignment and Fusion: A Survey , author=. 2025 , journal=

    2025

  37. [46]

    Ward, Alex , title =

  38. [47]

    Research and practice in technology enhanced learning , volume=

    Controlling item difficulty for automatic vocabulary question generation , author=. Research and practice in technology enhanced learning , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  39. [48]

    International conference on artificial intelligence in education , pages=

    A quantitative study of NLP approaches to question difficulty estimation , author=. International conference on artificial intelligence in education , pages=. 2023 , organization=

    2023

  40. [49]

    Proceedings of the 10th EAI International Conference on Mobile Multimedia Communications , pages=

    Masked loss residual convolutional neural network for facial keypoint detection , author=. Proceedings of the 10th EAI International Conference on Mobile Multimedia Communications , pages=

  41. [50]

    2026 , booktitle=

    Liver, vessel, and tumor segmentation from partially labeled CT and multi-label masked learning , author=. 2026 , booktitle=

    2026

  42. [51]

    Statistical theories of mental test scores , year=

    Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability , author=. Statistical theories of mental test scores , year=

  43. [52]

    ETS Research Report Series , volume=

    A generalized partial credit model: Application of an EM algorithm , author=. ETS Research Report Series , volume=. 1992 , publisher=

    1992

  44. [53]

    IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , volume=

    Multimodal machine learning: A survey and taxonomy , author=. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  45. [54]

    , author=

    Multimodal deep learning. , author=. ICML , volume=

  46. [55]

    Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

    Smart: Simulated students aligned with item response theory for question difficulty prediction , author=. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

    2025

  47. [56]

    Ninth international conference on document analysis and recognition (ICDAR 2007) , volume=

    An overview of the Tesseract OCR engine , author=. Ninth international conference on document analysis and recognition (ICDAR 2007) , volume=. 2007 , organization=

    2007

  48. [57]

    The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning , volume=

    An integrated model of text and picture comprehension , author=. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning , volume=. 2005 , publisher=

    2005

  49. [58]

    Psychology of learning and motivation , volume=

    Multimedia learning , author=. Psychology of learning and motivation , volume=. 2002 , publisher=

    2002

  50. [59]

    1990 , publisher=

    Mental representations: A dual coding approach , author=. 1990 , publisher=

    1990

  51. [60]

    Proceedings of the tenth international conference on learning analytics & knowledge , pages=

    R2DE: a NLP approach to estimating IRT parameters of newly generated questions , author=. Proceedings of the tenth international conference on learning analytics & knowledge , pages=

  52. [61]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193 , year=

    Dinov2: Learning robust visual features without supervision , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07193 , year=

    arXiv

  53. [62]

    Artificial Intelligence Review , volume=

    A survey of the vision transformers and their CNN-transformer based variants , author=. Artificial Intelligence Review , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  54. [63]

    International conference on machine learning , pages=

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision , author=. International conference on machine learning , pages=. 2021 , organization=

    2021

  55. [64]

    International conference on machine learning , pages=

    Blip-2: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training with frozen image encoders and large language models , author=. International conference on machine learning , pages=. 2023 , organization=

    2023

  56. [65]

    International conference on machine learning , pages=

    Blip: Bootstrapping language-image pre-training for unified vision-language understanding and generation , author=. International conference on machine learning , pages=. 2022 , organization=

    2022

  57. [66]

    European Conference on Computer Vision , pages=

    Ocr-free document understanding transformer , author=. European Conference on Computer Vision , pages=. 2022 , organization=

    2022

  58. [67]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 , year=

    Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 , year=

    1907 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Computers & Education , volume=

    Item difficulty estimation: An auspicious collaboration between data and judgment , author=. Computers & Education , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  60. [69]

    Information Processing & Management , volume=

    Automated estimation of item difficulty for multiple-choice tests: An application of word embedding techniques , author=. Information Processing & Management , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  61. [70]

    Educational and Psychological Measurement , volume=

    Item difficulty modeling using fine-tuned small and large language models , author=. Educational and Psychological Measurement , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  62. [71]

    CBE—Life Sciences Education , volume=

    Multiple-choice exams: an obstacle for higher-level thinking in introductory science classes , author=. CBE—Life Sciences Education , volume=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  63. [72]

    Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education , volume=

    Question format is the best predictor of item discrimination: a multivariable analysis , author=. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  64. [73]

    The Curriculum Journal , volume=

    Predicting item difficulty of science national curriculum tests: The case of key stage 2 assessments , author=. The Curriculum Journal , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  65. [74]

    Mathematics , VOLUME =

    Yi, Xifan and Sun, Jianing and Wu, Xiaopeng , TITLE =. Mathematics , VOLUME =. 2024 , NUMBER =

    2024

  66. [75]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.23486 , year=

    Text-Based Approaches to Item Difficulty Modeling in Large-Scale Assessments: A Systematic Review , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.23486 , year=

  67. [76]

    Information Sciences , volume=

    Attention pooling-based convolutional neural network for sentence modelling , author=. Information Sciences , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  68. [77]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15698 , year=

    Deep model fusion: A survey , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15698 , year=

    arXiv

  69. [78]

    Neural computation , volume=

    A survey on deep learning for multimodal data fusion , author=. Neural computation , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  70. [79]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10104 , year=

    Dinov3 , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10104 , year=

    arXiv

  71. [80]

    , author=

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. , author=. ICLR , volume=

  72. [81]

    ACM Computing Surveys , volume=

    A survey on recent approaches to question difficulty estimation from text , author=. ACM Computing Surveys , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  73. [82]

    International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education , volume=

    Text-based question difficulty prediction: A systematic review of automatic approaches , author=. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  74. [83]

    Proceedings of the Artificial Intelligence in Measurement and Education Conference (AIME-Con): Full Papers , pages=

    Leveraging Fine-tuned Large Language Models in Item Parameter Prediction , author=. Proceedings of the Artificial Intelligence in Measurement and Education Conference (AIME-Con): Full Papers , pages=

  75. [84]

    Discover Computing , volume=

    Multimodal sentiment analysis using image and text fusion for emotion detection , author=. Discover Computing , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  76. [85]

    Science Progress , volume =

    Szu-Yin Lin and Yen-Chiu Chen and Yu-Han Chang and Shih-Hsin Lo and Kuo-Ming Chao , title =. Science Progress , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  77. [86]

    2015 , issn =

    What makes an item more difficult? Effects of modality and type of visual information in a computer-based assessment of scientific inquiry abilities , journal =. 2015 , issn =. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.01.007 , url =

    2015 doi

  78. [87]

    ETS Research Report Series , volume =

    Zwick, Rebecca , title =. ETS Research Report Series , volume =. doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.2012.tb02290.x , url =. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2333-8504.2012.tb02290.x , year =

    2012

  79. [88]

    , title =

    Birnbaum, A. , title =. Statistical theories of mental test scores , editor =

  80. [89]

    International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education , pages=

    Text-based question difficulty prediction: A systematic review of automatic approaches , author=. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education , pages=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  81. [90]

    Educational and Psychological Measurement , year =

    Qizhou Duan and Ying Cheng , title =. Educational and Psychological Measurement , year =. doi:10.1177/00131644241280400 , URL =

    doi

  82. [91]

    2020 , journal=

    Language Models are Few-Shot Learners , author=. 2020 , journal=

    2020

  83. [92]

    Gierl and Hollis Lai and Simon R

    Mark J. Gierl and Hollis Lai and Simon R. Turner , doi =. Medical Education , title =

  84. [93]

    Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling , title =

    Jiao, Hong and He, Qiwei and Yao, Lihua , year =. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling , title =

  85. [94]

    2024 , journal=

    The Rise of Artificial Intelligence in Educational Measurement: Opportunities and Ethical Challenges , author=. 2024 , journal=

    2024

  86. [95]

    Advancing natural language processing in educational assessment , pages=

    Psychometric considerations when using deep learning for automated scoring , author=. Advancing natural language processing in educational assessment , pages=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  87. [96]

    and Yaneva, Victoria and Lottridge, Susan and von Davier, Matthias and Harris, Deborah J

    Hao, Jiangang and von Davier, Alina A. and Yaneva, Victoria and Lottridge, Susan and von Davier, Matthias and Harris, Deborah J. , title =. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , volume =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12602 , url =. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...

    doi

  88. [97]

    Applied Psychological Measurement , title =

    Gregory Camilli , doi =. Applied Psychological Measurement , title =

  89. [98]

    Frontiers in Education , title =

    Okan Bulut and Youngsuk Suh , doi =. Frontiers in Education , title =

  90. [99]

    British Journal of Psychology , title =

    William Brown , doi =. British Journal of Psychology , title =

  91. [100]

    Spearman , doi =

    C. Spearman , doi =. British Journal of Psychology, 1904‐1920 , title =

    1904

  92. [101]

    2021 , journal=

    DeBERTaV3: Improving DeBERTa using ELECTRA-Style Pre-Training with Gradient-Disentangled Embedding Sharing , author=. 2021 , journal=

    2021

  93. [102]

    Applied Psychological Measurement , title =

    Eiji Muraki , doi =. Applied Psychological Measurement , title =

  94. [103]

    Journal of the American Statistical Association , title =

    Nathan Mantel , doi =. Journal of the American Statistical Association , title =

  95. [104]

    2017 , journal=

    Attention Is All You Need , author=. 2017 , journal=

    2017

  96. [105]

    Holland and Dorothy T

    Paul W. Holland and Dorothy T. Thayer , doi =. Differential item performance and the mantel-haenszel procedure , year =. Test Validity , publisher =

  97. [106]

    and Wainer, Howard , booktitle =

    Zieky, Michael and Holland, Paul W. and Wainer, Howard , booktitle =. Practical Questions in the Use of DIF Statistics in Test Development , year =

  98. [107]

    Cognitive Computation , title =

    Vikas Hassija and Vinay Chamola and Atmesh Mahapatra and Abhinandan Singal and Divyansh Goel and Kaizhu Huang and Simone Scardapane and Indro Spinelli and Mufti Mahmud and Amir Hussain , doi =. Cognitive Computation , title =

  99. [108]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06064 , archivePrefix=

    Alexandra Zytek and Sara Pidò and Kalyan Veeramachaneni , year=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06064 , archivePrefix=

    arXiv

  100. [109]

    2009 , doi=

    Differential item functioning , author=. 2009 , doi=

    2009

  101. [110]

    2012 , publisher=

    Differential item functioning , author=. 2012 , publisher=

    2012

  102. [111]

    Perspectives on differential item functioning methodology , volume =

    William H Angoff , journal =. Perspectives on differential item functioning methodology , volume =

  103. [112]

    Thayer and John Mazzeo , doi =

    Rebecca Zwick and Dorothy T. Thayer and John Mazzeo , doi =. Applied Measurement in Education , title =

  104. [113]

    Thayer , doi =

    Rebecca Zwick and Dorothy T. Thayer , doi =. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics , title =

  105. [114]

    Gandomi and Fang Chen and Andreas Holzinger , doi =

    Jianlong Zhou and Amir H. Gandomi and Fang Chen and Andreas Holzinger , doi =. Electronics (Switzerland) , title =

  106. [115]

    ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology , title =

    Haiyan Zhao and Hanjie Chen and Fan Yang and Ninghao Liu and Huiqi Deng and Hengyi Cai and Shuaiqiang Wang and Dawei Yin and Mengnan Du , doi =. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology , title =

  107. [116]

    Bennett and Paul Deane and Peter W

    Mo Zhang and Randy E. Bennett and Paul Deane and Peter W. van Rijn , doi =. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice , title =

  108. [117]

    Axiomatic attribution for deep networks , volume =

    Mukund Sundararajan and Ankur Taly and Qiqi Yan , booktitle =. Axiomatic attribution for deep networks , volume =

  109. [118]

    Why Should I Trust You?

    "Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier , author=. 2016 , journal=

    2016

  110. [119]

    Axiomatic attribution for deep networks , urldate =

    Sundararajan, Mukund and Taly, Ankur and Yan, Qiqi , month = aug, year =. Axiomatic attribution for deep networks , urldate =. Proceedings of the 34th

  111. [120]

    CEUR Workshop Proceedings , title =

    Craig Pirie and Nirmalie Wiratunga and Anjana Wijekoon and Carlos Francisco Moreno-Garcia , issn =. CEUR Workshop Proceedings , title =

  112. [121]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , title =

    Adam Paszke and Sam Gross and Francisco Massa and Adam Lerer and James Bradbury and Gregory Chanan and Trevor Killeen and Zeming Lin and Natalia Gimelshein and Luca Antiga and Alban Desmaison and Andreas Köpf and Edward Yang and Zach DeVito and Martin Raison and Alykhan Tejani...

  113. [122]

    Michaelides , issn =

    Michalis P. Michaelides , issn =. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation , title =

  114. [123]

    Journal of the National Cancer Institute , title =

    Nathan Mantel and William Haenszel , doi =. Journal of the National Cancer Institute , title =

  115. [124]

    Lundberg and Su In Lee , issn =

    Scott M. Lundberg and Su In Lee , issn =. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , title =

  116. [125]

    2020 , journal=

    Captum: A unified and generic model interpretability library for PyTorch , author=. 2020 , journal=

    2020

  117. [126]

    Dorans and Paul W

    Neil J. Dorans and Paul W. Holland , doi =. ETS Research Report Series , title =

  118. [127]

    Jacob Devlin and Ming Wei Chang and Kenton Lee and Kristina Toutanova , booktitle =

  119. [128]

    LaFlair and Kevin Yancey and Alina A

    Jill Burstein and Geoffrey T. LaFlair and Kevin Yancey and Alina A. von Davier and Ravit Dotan , year=. Responsible. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.07476 , archivePrefix=

    arXiv

  120. [129]

    2016 , journal=

    Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings , author=. 2016 , journal=

    2016

  121. [130]

    Educational and Psychological Measurement , volume =

    Hotaka Maeda , title =. Educational and Psychological Measurement , volume =. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  122. [131]

    ACM Computing Surveys , title =

    Ninareh Mehrabi and Fred Morstatter and Nripsuta Saxena and Kristina Lerman and Aram Galstyan , doi =. ACM Computing Surveys , title =

  123. [132]

    IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , author =

    A. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , author =. 2021 , pages =. doi:10.1109/TNNLS.2020.3027314 , number =

    2021

  124. [133]

    FAIRFIL: CONTRASTIVE NEURAL DEBIASING METHOD FOR PRETRAINED TEXT ENCODERS , year =

    Pengyu Cheng and Weituo Hao and Siyang Yuan and Shijing Si and Lawrence Carin , booktitle =. FAIRFIL: CONTRASTIVE NEURAL DEBIASING METHOD FOR PRETRAINED TEXT ENCODERS , year =

  125. [134]

    Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Findings of ACL: EMNLP 2021 , title =

    Anne Lauscher and Tobias Lüken and Goran Glavaš , doi =. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Findings of ACL: EMNLP 2021 , title =

    2021

  126. [135]

    2020 , journal=

    Towards Debiasing Sentence Representations , author=. 2020 , journal=

    2020

  127. [136]

    Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021 , pages=

    He is very intelligent, she is very beautiful? on mitigating social biases in language modelling and generation , author=. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021 , pages=. doi:10.18653/v1/2021.findings-acl.397 , year=

    2021 doi

  128. [137]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09456 , year=

    StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.09456 , year=

    2004 arXiv

  129. [138]

    Science , volume=

    Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases , author=. Science , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  130. [139]

    2024 , journal=

    Smarter, Better, Faster, Longer: A Modern Bidirectional Encoder for Fast, Memory Efficient, and Long Context Finetuning and Inference , author=. 2024 , journal=

    2024

  131. [140]

    2024 , journal=

    Differential Transformer , author=. 2024 , journal=

    2024

  132. [141]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10149 , year=

    A survey on fairness in large language models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.10149 , year=

    arXiv

  133. [142]

    Interpreting artificial intelligence models: A systematic review on the application of

    Vimbi, Vahe and Shaffi, Naseer and Mahmud, Mobashsher , journal=. Interpreting artificial intelligence models: A systematic review on the application of. 2024 , doi=

    2024

  134. [143]

    2021 , url=

    Transformers Interpret 0.5.2 , author=. 2021 , url=

    2021

  135. [144]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.15733 , year=

    Detecting gender bias in transformer-based models: A case study on bert , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.15733 , year=

    arXiv

  136. [145]

    WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery , author =

    Explainable artificial intelligence: an analytical review , volume =. WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery , author =. 2021 , pages =. doi:10.1002/widm.1424 , language =

    2021 doi

  137. [146]

    and Bau, David and Yuan, Ben Z

    Gilpin, Leilani H. and Bau, David and Yuan, Ben Z. and Bajwa, Ayesha and Specter, Michael and Kagal, Lalana , month = oct, year =. Explaining. 2018. doi:10.1109/DSAA.2018.00018 , urldate =

    2018

  138. [147]

    Values of

    Owen, Guilliermo , editor =. Values of. Mathematical. 1977 , pages =. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-45494-3_7 , language =

    1977 doi

  139. [148]

    Nature Machine Intelligence , author =

    Improving performance of deep learning models with axiomatic attribution priors and expected gradients , volume =. Nature Machine Intelligence , author =. 2021 , note =. doi:10.1038/s42256-021-00343-w , language =

    2021 doi

  140. [149]

    Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry , author =

    Analysis of regression in game theory approach , volume =. Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry , author =. 2001 , keywords =. doi:10.1002/asmb.446 , language =

    2001 doi

  141. [150]

    International Journal of Educational Research , author =

    Item bias and item response theory , volume =. International Journal of Educational Research , author =. 1989 , pages =. doi:10.1016/0883-0355(89)90002-5 , number =

    1989 doi

  142. [151]

    Journal of Educational Measurement , author =

    An. Journal of Educational Measurement , author =. 1987 , pages =

    1987

  143. [152]

    ETS Research Report Series , author =

    Exploration of. ETS Research Report Series , author =. 1985 , pages =. doi:10.1002/j.2330-8516.1985.tb00127.x , language =

    1985

  144. [153]

    Item Bias and Test Multidimensionality

    Kok, Frank. Item Bias and Test Multidimensionality. Latent Trait and Latent Class Models. 1988. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-5644-9_12

    1988 doi

  145. [154]

    Applied Measurement in Education , author =

    Assessing. Applied Measurement in Education , author =. 2001 , pages =. doi:10.1207/S15324818AME1403_3 , number =

    2001 doi

  146. [155]

    Traditional vs intersectional

    Albano, Tony and French, Brian F and Vo, Thao Thu , journal=. Traditional vs intersectional. 2024 , publisher=. doi:10.1080/08957347.2024.2311935 , pages=

    2024

  147. [156]

    An intersectional approach to

    Russell, Michael and Szendey, Olivia and Li, Zhushan , booktitle=. An intersectional approach to. 2023 , publisher=. doi:10.1080/10627197.2022.2094757 , pages=

    2023

  148. [157]

    Journal of Educational measurement , volume=

    Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures , author=. Journal of Educational measurement , volume=. 1990 , publisher=

    1990

  149. [158]

    Applied Psychological Measurement , volume=

    Empirical selection of anchors for tests of differential item functioning , author=. Applied Psychological Measurement , volume=. 2009 , publisher=

    2009

  150. [159]

    Use of Item Response Theory in the Study of Group Differences in Trace Lines

    Thissen, David and Steinberg, Lynne and Wainer, Howard , year =. Use of Item Response Theory in the Study of Group Differences in Trace Lines. , booktitle =. doi:10.1037/14047-004 , abstract =

    doi

  151. [160]

    and Donoghue, John R

    Allen, Nancy L. and Donoghue, John R. and Schoeps, Thomas L. , title =. 2001 , number =

    2001

  152. [161]

    de Ayala, R. J. , year =. The theory and practice of item response theory. , isbn =

  153. [162]

    and Algina, James , address =

    Crocker, Linda M. and Algina, James , address =. Introduction to classical and modern test theory , year =. Introduction to classical and modern test theory , isbn =

  154. [163]

    Predicting

    Marinho, Wemerson and Clua, Esteban Walter and Martí, Luis and Marinho, Karla , month = mar, year =. Predicting. doi:10.1145/3576050.3576139 , urldate =

  155. [164]

    Expert Systems with Applications , author =

    Design a personalized e-learning system based on item response theory and artificial neural network approach , volume =. Expert Systems with Applications , author =. 2009 , keywords =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.10.080 , number =

    2009 doi

  156. [165]

    Automatic item generation: foundations and machine learning-based approaches for assessments , volume =

    Circi, Ruhan and Hicks, Juanita and Sikali, Emmanuel , month = may, year =. Automatic item generation: foundations and machine learning-based approaches for assessments , volume =. Frontiers in Education , publisher =. doi:10.3389/feduc.2023.858273 , language =

  157. [166]

    Srivastava, Nitish and Hinton, Geoffrey and Krizhevsky, Alex and Sutskever, Ilya and Salakhutdinov, Ruslan , title =. J. Mach. Learn. Res. , month = jan, pages =. 2014 , issue_date =

    2014

  158. [167]

    Journal of Educational Measurement , author =

    Finding words associated with. Journal of Educational Measurement , author =. 2025 , pages =. doi:10.1111/jedm.70017 , language =

    2025 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.