Exploring the Potential of Large Language Models for Estimating the Reading Comprehension Question Difficulty

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.17785v1
• Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 02:28:48 GMT
• Title: Exploring the Potential of Large Language Models for Estimating the Reading Comprehension Question Difficulty
• Abstract summary: This study investigates the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in estimating the difficulty of reading comprehension questions.<n>We use OpenAI's GPT-4o and o1, in estimating the difficulty of reading comprehension questions using the Study Aid and Reading Assessment (SARA) dataset.<n>The results indicate that while the models yield difficulty estimates that align meaningfully with derived IRT parameters, there are notable differences in their sensitivity to extreme item characteristics.
• Score: 2.335292678914151
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Reading comprehension is a key for individual success, yet the assessment of question difficulty remains challenging due to the extensive human annotation and large-scale testing required by traditional methods such as linguistic analysis and Item Response Theory (IRT). While these robust approaches provide valuable insights, their scalability is limited. There is potential for Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate question difficulty estimation; however, this area remains underexplored. Our study investigates the effectiveness of LLMs, specifically OpenAI's GPT-4o and o1, in estimating the difficulty of reading comprehension questions using the Study Aid and Reading Assessment (SARA) dataset. We evaluated both the accuracy of the models in answering comprehension questions and their ability to classify difficulty levels as defined by IRT. The results indicate that, while the models yield difficulty estimates that align meaningfully with derived IRT parameters, there are notable differences in their sensitivity to extreme item characteristics. These findings suggest that LLMs can serve as the scalable method for automated difficulty assessment, particularly in dynamic interactions between learners and Adaptive Instructional Systems (AIS), bridging the gap between traditional psychometric techniques and modern AIS for reading comprehension and paving the way for more adaptive and personalized educational assessments.

Related papers

• CLAIM: Leading Open-domain Active Clarification of Large Language Models with Uncertainty Measurement [50.91045324738942]
  CLAIM is an uncertainty-driven framework for active clarification learning in open-domain settings.<n>We propose an entropy-driven synthetic data generation pipeline that integrates uncertainty estimation with semantic clustering and reasoning-based judgments.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that CLAIM can learn stable and generalizable clarification strategies without relying on manually labeled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T04:27:45Z)
• Assessment Design in the AI Era: A Method for Identifying Items Functioning Differentially for Humans and Chatbots [0.0]
  The rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) in education raises profound challenges for assessment design.<n>We introduce a statistically principled approach for identifying items on which humans and LLMs show systematic response differences.<n>The method is based on Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-24T19:39:39Z)
• Large Language Models as Students Who Think Aloud: Overly Coherent, Verbose, and Confident [0.8564319625930894]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in AI-based tutoring systems. Can they faithfully model novice reasoning and metacognitive judgments?<n>We evaluate LLMs as novices using 630 think-aloud utterances from chemistry tutoring problems with problem-solving logs of student hint use, attempts, and problem context.<n>We compare LLM-generated reasoning to human learner utterances under minimal and extended contextual prompting, and assess the models' ability to predict step-level learner success.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-01T04:46:38Z)
• Synthetic Student Responses: LLM-Extracted Features for IRT Difficulty Parameter Estimation [0.0]
  We investigate whether Item Response Theory difficulty parameters can be accurately estimated without student testing.<n>Our approach combines traditional linguistic features with pedagogical insights extracted using Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Using a dataset of over 250,000 student responses to mathematics questions, our model achieves a Pearson correlation of approximately 0.78 between predicted and actual difficulty parameters on completely unseen questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-18T18:19:13Z)
• Can LLMs Estimate Student Struggles? Human-AI Difficulty Alignment with Proficiency Simulation for Item Difficulty Prediction [26.396483988509956]
  We present a large-scale empirical analysis of Human-AI Difficulty Alignment for over 20 models across diverse domains.<n>Our findings reveal a systematic misalignment where scaling up model size is not reliably helpful.<n>We observe that high performance often impedes accurate difficulty estimation, as models struggle to simulate the capability limitations of students.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-21T20:41:36Z)
• Can LLMs Estimate Cognitive Complexity of Reading Comprehension Items? [19.75655994660427]
  Estimating the cognitive complexity of reading comprehension (RC) items is crucial for assessing item difficulty before it is administered to learners.<n>In this study, we examine whether large language models (LLMs) can estimate the cognitive complexity of RC items.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-29T01:07:26Z)
• Curse of Knowledge: When Complex Evaluation Context Benefits yet Biases LLM Judges [72.3356133063925]
  The paradigm of large language models (LLMs) as judges has emerged as a scalable solution, yet prior work primarily focuses on simple settings.<n>Our in-depth analysis offers crucial insights for improving the accuracy and verifiability of evaluation signals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-03T15:48:33Z)
• MDK12-Bench: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Multimodal Large Language Models on Multidisciplinary Exams [50.293164501645975]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) integrate language and visual cues for problem-solving.<n>Current benchmarks for measuring the intelligence of MLLMs suffer from limited scale, narrow coverage, and unstructured knowledge.<n>We introduce MDK12-Bench, a large-scale multidisciplinary benchmark built from real-world K-12 exams spanning six disciplines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-09T06:21:10Z)
• Your Pretrained Model Tells the Difficulty Itself: A Self-Adaptive Curriculum Learning Paradigm for Natural Language Understanding [53.63482987410292]
  We present a self-adaptive curriculum learning paradigm that prioritizes fine-tuning examples based on difficulty scores predicted by pre-trained language models.<n>We evaluate our method on four natural language understanding (NLU) datasets covering both binary and multi-class classification tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-13T19:36:17Z)
• Analyzing Feedback Mechanisms in AI-Generated MCQs: Insights into Readability, Lexical Properties, and Levels of Challenge [0.0]
  This study delves into the linguistic and structural attributes of feedback generated by Google's Gemini 1.5-flash text model for computer science multiple-choice questions (MCQs)<n>Key linguistic metrics, such as length, readability scores (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level), vocabulary richness, and lexical density, were computed and examined.<n>The findings reveal significant interaction effects between feedback tone and question difficulty, demonstrating the dynamic adaptation of AI-generated feedback within diverse educational contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-19T09:20:52Z)
• Improving Multilingual Retrieval-Augmented Language Models through Dialectic Reasoning Argumentations [65.11348389219887]
  We introduce Dialectic-RAG (DRAG), a modular approach that evaluates retrieved information by comparing, contrasting, and resolving conflicting perspectives. We show the impact of our framework both as an in-context learning strategy and for constructing demonstrations to instruct smaller models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T06:55:15Z)
• Dancing with Critiques: Enhancing LLM Reasoning with Stepwise Natural Language Self-Critique [66.94905631175209]
  We propose a novel inference-time scaling approach -- stepwise natural language self-critique (PANEL) It employs self-generated natural language critiques as feedback to guide the step-level search process. This approach bypasses the need for task-specific verifiers and the associated training overhead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-21T17:59:55Z)
• DAST: Difficulty-Aware Self-Training on Large Language Models [68.30467836807362]
  Large Language Models (LLM) self-training methods always under-sample on challenging queries. This work proposes a difficulty-aware self-training framework that focuses on improving the quantity and quality of self-generated responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T03:36:45Z)
• How Good is ChatGPT in Giving Adaptive Guidance Using Knowledge Graphs in E-Learning Environments? [0.8999666725996978]
  This study introduces an approach that integrates dynamic knowledge graphs with large language models (LLMs) to offer nuanced student assistance. Central to this method is the knowledge graph's role in assessing a student's comprehension of topic prerequisites. Preliminary findings suggest students could benefit from this tiered support, achieving enhanced comprehension and improved task outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-05T04:05:43Z)
• Exploring Knowledge Boundaries in Large Language Models for Retrieval Judgment [56.87031484108484]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly recognized for their practical applications. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) tackles this challenge and has shown a significant impact on LLMs. By minimizing retrieval requests that yield neutral or harmful results, we can effectively reduce both time and computational costs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-09T15:12:28Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• Leveraging Prompts in LLMs to Overcome Imbalances in Complex Educational Text Data [1.8280573037181356]
  We explore the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) with assertions to mitigate imbalances in educational datasets. This issue is especially prominent in the education sector, where cognitive engagement levels among students show significant variation in their open responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-28T00:24:08Z)
• Bayesian Preference Elicitation with Language Models [82.58230273253939]
  We introduce OPEN, a framework that uses BOED to guide the choice of informative questions and an LM to extract features. In user studies, we find that OPEN outperforms existing LM- and BOED-based methods for preference elicitation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-08T18:57:52Z)
• Puzzle Solving using Reasoning of Large Language Models: A Survey [1.9939549451457024]
  This survey examines the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in puzzle solving. Our findings highlight the disparity between LLM capabilities and human-like reasoning. The survey underscores the necessity for novel strategies and richer datasets to advance LLMs' puzzle-solving proficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T14:19:38Z)
• Difficulty-Focused Contrastive Learning for Knowledge Tracing with a Large Language Model-Based Difficulty Prediction [2.8946115982002443]
  This paper presents novel techniques for enhancing the performance of knowledge tracing (KT) models by focusing on the crucial factor of question and concept difficulty level. We propose a difficulty-centered contrastive learning method for KT models and a Large Language Model (LLM)-based framework for difficulty prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-19T06:26:25Z)
• Context Matters: Data-Efficient Augmentation of Large Language Models for Scientific Applications [15.893290942177112]
  We explore the challenges inherent to Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4. The capacity of LLMs to present erroneous answers in a coherent and semantically rigorous manner complicates the detection of factual inaccuracies. Our work aims to enhance the understanding and mitigation of such errors, thereby contributing to the improvement of LLM accuracy and reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-12T08:43:20Z)
• SOUL: Towards Sentiment and Opinion Understanding of Language [96.74878032417054]
  We propose a new task called Sentiment and Opinion Understanding of Language (SOUL) SOUL aims to evaluate sentiment understanding through two subtasks: Review (RC) and Justification Generation (JG)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T06:48:48Z)
• Re-Reading Improves Reasoning in Large Language Models [87.46256176508376]
  We introduce a simple, yet general and effective prompting method, Re2, to enhance the reasoning capabilities of off-the-shelf Large Language Models (LLMs) Unlike most thought-eliciting prompting methods, such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT), Re2 shifts the focus to the input by processing questions twice, thereby enhancing the understanding process. We evaluate Re2 on extensive reasoning benchmarks across 14 datasets, spanning 112 experiments, to validate its effectiveness and generality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-12T14:36:23Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.