mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Check The Scoreboard: An Analysis of Scoring Schemes on Multiple-Choice Evaluation

arXiv 2608.29887 ↗First posted 30 Aug 2026cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) benchmarks in NLP use number-right scoring (accuracy), but in educational testing, the scoring scheme, the combination of the response mode models follow and the rule for grading responses, is a key design choice that dictates which abilities to reward. We examine how alternatives to number right change what MCQA measures with six education-inspired schemes that assess abilities beyond accuracy: distractor elimination, abstention, confidence calibration, and self-correction. On LLM benchmarks, these schemes: 1) shift rankings of 31 LLMs beyond rephrased number right prompts; 2) better predict the LLMs users prefer in LLM Arena; and 3) reveal distinct model capabilities, like that GPT-5 rarely abstains and readily self-corrects, while weaker open-weight models often abstain and hesitate to eliminate choices. Given the benefits of alternative scoring schemes, we discuss ways to extend them to tasks beyond MCQA.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 30 of its 70 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Aug 2026.

Builds on

30 of 70 references.

References · 30

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  2. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  3. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,820
  4. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  5. 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
  6. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,960
  7. 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,886
  8. 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,442
  9. 2023Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yetcited by 1,017
  10. 2025LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversationcited by 429
  11. 2024OLMES: A Standard for Language Model Evaluationscited by 106
  12. 2024Open-LLM-Leaderboard: From Multi-choice to Open-style Questions for LLMs Evaluation, Benchmark, and Arenacited by 76
18 more
  1. 2023Language models are not naysayers: An analysis of language models on negation benchmarkscited by 74
  2. 2024Artifacts or Abduction: How Do LLMs Answer Multiple-Choice Questions Without the Question?cited by 71
  3. 2025AstaBench: Rigorous Benchmarking of AI Agents with a Scientific Research Suitecited by 53
  4. 2025Which of These Best Describes Multiple Choice Evaluation with LLMs? A) Forced B) Flawed C) Fixable D) All of the Abovecited by 52
  5. 2024Benchmarks as Microscopes: A Call for Model Metrologycited by 35
  6. 2019From 'F' to 'A' on the N.Y. Regents Science Exams: An Overview of the Aristo Projectcited by 33
  7. 2022When Life Gives You Lemons, Make Cherryade: Converting Feedback from Bad Responses into Good Labelscited by 20
  8. 2025User Feedback in Human-LLM Dialogues: A Lens to Understand Users But Noisy as a Learning Signalcited by 19
  9. 2024Plausibly Problematic Questions in Multiple-Choice Benchmarks for Commonsense Reasoningcited by 13
  10. 2023It's Not Easy Being Wrong: Large Language Models Struggle with Process of Elimination Reasoningcited by 12
  11. 2024Is Your Large Language Model Knowledgeable or a Choices-Only Cheater?cited by 12
  12. 2025WiCkeD: A Simple Method to Make Multiple Choice Benchmarks More Challengingcited by 11
  13. 2024An Automatic Question Usability Evaluation Toolkitcited by 10
  14. 2023POE: Process of Elimination for Multiple Choice Reasoningcited by 8
  15. 2024A Psychology-based Unified Dynamic Framework for Curriculum Learningcited by 6
  16. 2026BenchMarker: An Education-Inspired Toolkit for Highlighting Flaws in Multiple-Choice Benchmarkscited by 5
  17. 2025Test-Time Reasoners Are Strategic Multiple-Choice Test-Takerscited by 3
  18. 2026Language Models Don't Know What You Want: Evaluating Personalization in Deep Research Needs Real Userscited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.