Analysis of the Cambridge Multiple-Choice Questions Reading Dataset with a Focus on Candidate Response Distribution
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Jun 2023.
Builds on
8 of 23 references.
References · 8
- 2022Learn to Explain: Multimodal Reasoning via Thought Chains for Science Question Answeringcited by 1,881
- 2018CommonsenseQA: A Question Answering Challenge Targeting Commonsense Knowledgecited by 1,793
- 2019Cosmos QA: Machine Reading Comprehension with Contextual Commonsense Reasoningcited by 281
- 2020Retrieve, Program, Repeat: Complex Knowledge Base Question Answering via Alternate Meta-learningcited by 216
- 2020ReClor: A Reading Comprehension Dataset Requiring Logical Reasoningcited by 211
- 2019DREAM: A Challenge Dataset and Models for Dialogue-Based Reading Comprehensioncited by 156
- 2022Multiple-Choice Question Generation: Towards an Automated Assessment Frameworkcited by 23
- 2022World Knowledge in Multiple Choice Reading Comprehensioncited by 6
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 3; 2025: 2; 2026: 1.
7 papers.
- 2025Do LLMs Give Psychometrically Plausible Responses in Educational Assessments?cited by 14
- 2024Question Difficulty Ranking for Multiple-Choice Reading Comprehensioncited by 7
- 2025Can LLMs Estimate Cognitive Complexity of Reading Comprehension Items?cited by 4
- 2023Assessing Distractors in Multiple-Choice Testscited by 3
- 2024Finetuning LLMs for Comparative Assessment Taskscited by 2
- 2026LLMs Struggle to Measure What Distinguishes Students of Different Proficiency Levels: A Study of Item Discrimination in Reading Comprehension Assessmentcited by 2
- 2024An Information-Theoretic Approach to Analyze NLP Classification Taskscited by 1
- 2026LLMs Struggle to Measure What Distinguishes Students of Different Proficiency Levels: A Study of Item Discrimination in Reading Comprehension Assessment17 Jun 2026
- 2025Can LLMs Estimate Cognitive Complexity of Reading Comprehension Items?29 Oct 2025
- 2025Do LLMs Give Psychometrically Plausible Responses in Educational Assessments?11 Jun 2025
- 2024Finetuning LLMs for Comparative Assessment Tasks24 Sep 2024
- 2024Question Difficulty Ranking for Multiple-Choice Reading Comprehension16 Apr 2024
- 2024An Information-Theoretic Approach to Analyze NLP Classification Tasks1 Feb 2024
- 2023Assessing Distractors in Multiple-Choice Tests8 Nov 2023