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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29887 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.29887/

## 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 (most cited first, 30 of 30)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05457/) (2018)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.06120/) (2025)
- [OLMES: A Standard for Language Model Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.08446/) (2024)
- [Open-LLM-Leaderboard: From Multi-choice to Open-style Questions for LLMs Evaluation, Benchmark, and Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07545/) (2024)
- [Language models are not naysayers: An analysis of language models on negation benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.08189/) (2023)
- [Artifacts or Abduction: How Do LLMs Answer Multiple-Choice Questions Without the Question?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.12483/) (2024)
- [AstaBench: Rigorous Benchmarking of AI Agents with a Scientific Research Suite](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.21652/) (2025)
- [Which of These Best Describes Multiple Choice Evaluation with LLMs? A) Forced B) Flawed C) Fixable D) All of the Above](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.14127/) (2025)
- [Benchmarks as Microscopes: A Call for Model Metrology](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.16711/) (2024)
- [From 'F' to 'A' on the N.Y. Regents Science Exams: An Overview of the Aristo Project](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.01958/) (2019)
- [When Life Gives You Lemons, Make Cherryade: Converting Feedback from Bad Responses into Good Labels](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.15893/) (2022)
- [User Feedback in Human-LLM Dialogues: A Lens to Understand Users But Noisy as a Learning Signal](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.23158/) (2025)
- [Plausibly Problematic Questions in Multiple-Choice Benchmarks for Commonsense Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.10854/) (2024)
- [It's Not Easy Being Wrong: Large Language Models Struggle with Process of Elimination Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07532/) (2023)
- [Is Your Large Language Model Knowledgeable or a Choices-Only Cheater?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.01992/) (2024)
- [WiCkeD: A Simple Method to Make Multiple Choice Benchmarks More Challenging](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.18316/) (2025)
- [An Automatic Question Usability Evaluation Toolkit](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.20529/) (2024)
- [POE: Process of Elimination for Multiple Choice Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.15575/) (2023)
- [A Psychology-based Unified Dynamic Framework for Curriculum Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.05326/) (2024)
- [BenchMarker: An Education-Inspired Toolkit for Highlighting Flaws in Multiple-Choice Benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.06221/) (2026)
- [Test-Time Reasoners Are Strategic Multiple-Choice Test-Takers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.07761/) (2025)
- [Language Models Don't Know What You Want: Evaluating Personalization in Deep Research Needs Real Users](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.16120/) (2026)

## 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.