Question Difficulty Ranking for Multiple-Choice Reading Comprehension
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Multiple-choice (MC) tests are an efficient method to assess English learners. It is useful for test creators to rank candidate MC questions by difficulty during exam curation. Typically, the difficulty is determined by having human test takers trial the questions in a pretesting stage. However, this is expensive and not scalable. Therefore, we explore automated approaches to rank MC questions by difficulty. However, there is limited data for explicit training of a system for difficulty scores. Hence, we compare task transfer and zero-shot approaches: task transfer adapts level classification and reading comprehension systems for difficulty ranking while zero-shot prompting of instruction finetuned language models contrasts absolute assessment against comparative. It is found that level classification transfers better than reading comprehension. Additionally, zero-shot comparative assessment is more effective at difficulty ranking than the absolute assessment and even the task transfer approaches at question difficulty ranking with a Spearman's correlation of 40.4%. Combining the systems is observed to further boost the correlation.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Apr 2024.
Builds on
8 of 28 references.
References · 8
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
- 2023QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMscited by 3,418
- 2017RACE: Large-scale ReAding Comprehension Dataset From Examinationscited by 861
- 2020A Survey on Machine Reading Comprehension Systemscited by 41
- 2022Multiple-Choice Question Generation: Towards an Automated Assessment Frameworkcited by 23
- 2023Analysis of the Cambridge Multiple-Choice Questions Reading Dataset with a Focus on Candidate Response Distributioncited by 7
- 2024An Information-Theoretic Approach to Analyze NLP Classification Taskscited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 4; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
7 papers.
- 2024Efficient LLM Comparative Assessment: a Product of Experts Framework for Pairwise Comparisonscited by 22
- 2024Are You Doubtful? Oh, It Might Be Difficult Then! Exploring the Use of Model Uncertainty for Question Difficulty Estimationcited by 7
- 2024Can Model Uncertainty Function as a Proxy for Multiple-Choice Question Item Difficulty?cited by 5
- 2025Can LLMs Estimate Cognitive Complexity of Reading Comprehension Items?cited by 4
- 2024Finetuning LLMs for Comparative Assessment Taskscited by 2
- 2026Question Difficulty Estimation for Large Language Models via Answer Plausibility Scoringcited by 2
- 2026A Multi-Agent Framework for Feature-Constrained Difficulty Control in Reading Comprehension Item Generationcited by 0
- 2026A Multi-Agent Framework for Feature-Constrained Difficulty Control in Reading Comprehension Item Generation19 May 2026
- 2026Question Difficulty Estimation for Large Language Models via Answer Plausibility Scoring12 May 2026
- 2025Can LLMs Estimate Cognitive Complexity of Reading Comprehension Items?29 Oct 2025
- 2024Are You Doubtful? Oh, It Might Be Difficult Then! Exploring the Use of Model Uncertainty for Question Difficulty Estimation16 Dec 2024
- 2024Finetuning LLMs for Comparative Assessment Tasks24 Sep 2024
- 2024Can Model Uncertainty Function as a Proxy for Multiple-Choice Question Item Difficulty?7 Jul 2024
- 2024Efficient LLM Comparative Assessment: a Product of Experts Framework for Pairwise Comparisons9 May 2024