# Assessment Design in the AI Era: A Method for Identifying Items Functioning Differentially for Humans and Chatbots

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.23682 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.23682/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 10 of its 25 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Mar 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Learn to Explain: Multimodal Reasoning via Thought Chains for Science Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.09513/) (2022)
- [SciBench: Evaluating College-Level Scientific Problem-Solving Abilities of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.10635/) (2023)
- [Cognitive Bias in Decision-Making with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.00811/) (2024)
- [ChatGPT: The End of Online Exam Integrity?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09292/) (2022)
- [Practical and Ethical Challenges of Large Language Models in Education: A Systematic Scoping Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.13379/) (2023)
- [Will ChatGPT get you caught? Rethinking of Plagiarism Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04335/) (2023)
- [Examining the Potential and Pitfalls of ChatGPT in Science and Engineering Problem-Solving](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08773/) (2023)
- [Could ChatGPT get an Engineering Degree? Evaluating Higher Education Vulnerability to AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.11841/) (2024)
- [Do LLMs Make Mistakes Like Students? Exploring Natural Alignment between Language Models and Human Error Patterns](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.15140/) (2025)
- [Applying IRT to Distinguish Between Human and Generative AI Responses to Multiple-Choice Assessments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.02713/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Are Near-Tied LLM Rankings Robust to Family-DIF-Guided Benchmark Recomposition?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.00482/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) in education raises profound challenges for assessment design. To adapt assessments to the presence of LLM-based tools, it is crucial to characterize the strengths and weaknesses of LLMs in a generalizable, valid and reliable manner. However, current LLM evaluations often rely on descriptive statistics derived from benchmarks, and little research applies theory-grounded measurement methods to characterize LLM capabilities relative to human learners in ways that directly support assessment design. Here, by combining educational data mining and psychometric theory, we introduce a statistically principled approach for identifying items on which humans and LLMs show systematic response differences, pinpointing where assessments may be most vulnerable to AI misuse, and which task dimensions make problems particularly easy or difficult for generative AI. The method is based on Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis -- traditionally used to detect bias across demographic groups -- together with negative control analysis and item-total correlation discrimination analysis. It is evaluated on responses from human learners and six leading chatbots (ChatGPT-4o & 5.2, Gemini 1.5 & 3 Pro, Claude 3.5 & 4.5 Sonnet) to two instruments: a high school chemistry diagnostic test and a university entrance exam. Subject-matter experts then analyzed DIF-flagged items to characterize task dimensions associated with chatbot over- or under-performance. Results show that DIF-informed analytics provide a robust framework for understanding where LLM and human capabilities diverge, and highlight their value for improving the design of valid, reliable, and fair assessment in the AI era.