mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Assessing Distractors in Multiple-Choice Tests

arXiv 2311.04554 ↗First posted 8 Nov 2023cs.CLcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Multiple-choice tests are a common approach for assessing candidates' comprehension skills. Standard multiple-choice reading comprehension exams require candidates to select the correct answer option from a discrete set based on a question in relation to a contextual passage. For appropriate assessment, the distractor answer options must by definition be incorrect but plausible and diverse. However, generating good quality distractors satisfying these criteria is a challenging task for content creators. We propose automated assessment metrics for the quality of distractors in multiple-choice reading comprehension tests. Specifically, we define quality in terms of the incorrectness, plausibility and diversity of the distractor options. We assess incorrectness using the classification ability of a binary multiple-choice reading comprehension system. Plausibility is assessed by considering the distractor confidence - the probability mass associated with the distractor options for a standard multi-class multiple-choice reading comprehension system. Diversity is assessed by pairwise comparison of an embedding-based equivalence metric between the distractors of a question. To further validate the plausibility metric we compare against candidate distributions over multiple-choice questions and agreement with a ChatGPT model's interpretation of distractor plausibility and diversity.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Nov 2023.

Builds on

21 of 35 references.

References · 21

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  3. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  4. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  5. 2022PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathwayscited by 5,304
  6. 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,710
  7. 2018HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answeringcited by 3,686
  8. 2022BLOOM: A 176B-Parameter Open-Access Multilingual Language Modelcited by 1,968
  9. 2020Big Bird: Transformers for Longer Sequencescited by 1,673
  10. 2017RACE: Large-scale ReAding Comprehension Dataset From Examinationscited by 851
  11. 2016NewsQA: A Machine Comprehension Datasetcited by 330
  12. 2020LUKE: Deep Contextualized Entity Representations with Entity-aware Self-attentioncited by 326
9 more
  1. 2020ReClor: A Reading Comprehension Dataset Requiring Logical Reasoningcited by 211
  2. 2021Logic-Driven Context Extension and Data Augmentation for Logical Reasoning of Textcited by 46
  3. 2020Automatic Distractor Generation for Multiple Choice Questions in Standard Testscited by 26
  4. 2018Generating Distractors for Reading Comprehension Questions from Real Examinationscited by 24
  5. 2022Multiple-Choice Question Generation: Towards an Automated Assessment Frameworkcited by 23
  6. 2022Two is Better than Many? Binary Classification as an Effective Approach to Multi-Choice Question Answeringcited by 10
  7. 2022Evaluating the Knowledge Dependency of Questionscited by 9
  8. 2023Analysis of the Cambridge Multiple-Choice Questions Reading Dataset with a Focus on Candidate Response Distributioncited by 7
  9. 2022World Knowledge in Multiple Choice Reading Comprehensioncited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 1.

3 papers.