It is Too Many Options: Pitfalls of Multiple-Choice Questions in Generative AI and Medical Education

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.13508v1
• Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2025 19:42:04 GMT
• Title: It is Too Many Options: Pitfalls of Multiple-Choice Questions in Generative AI and Medical Education
• Authors: Shrutika Singh, Anton Alyakin, Daniel Alexander Alber, Jaden Stryker, Ai Phuong S Tong, Karl Sangwon, Nicolas Goff, Mathew de la Paz, Miguel Hernandez-Rovira, Ki Yun Park, Eric Claude Leuthardt, Eric Karl Oermann,
• Abstract summary: The performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) on multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks is frequently cited as proof of their medical capabilities.<n>We created a novel benchmark of free-response questions with paired MCQs (FreeMedQA)<n>Using this benchmark, we evaluated three state-of-the-art LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-3.5, and LLama-3-70B-instruct) and found an average absolute deterioration of 39.43% in performance on free-response questions.
• Score: 0.7771252627207672
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) on multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks is frequently cited as proof of their medical capabilities. We hypothesized that LLM performance on medical MCQs may in part be illusory and driven by factors beyond medical content knowledge and reasoning capabilities. To assess this, we created a novel benchmark of free-response questions with paired MCQs (FreeMedQA). Using this benchmark, we evaluated three state-of-the-art LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-3.5, and LLama-3-70B-instruct) and found an average absolute deterioration of 39.43% in performance on free-response questions relative to multiple-choice (p = 1.3 * 10-5) which was greater than the human performance decline of 22.29%. To isolate the role of the MCQ format on performance, we performed a masking study, iteratively masking out parts of the question stem. At 100% masking, the average LLM multiple-choice performance was 6.70% greater than random chance (p = 0.002) with one LLM (GPT-4o) obtaining an accuracy of 37.34%. Notably, for all LLMs the free-response performance was near zero. Our results highlight the shortcomings in medical MCQ benchmarks for overestimating the capabilities of LLMs in medicine, and, broadly, the potential for improving both human and machine assessments using LLM-evaluated free-response questions.

Related papers

• Right Answer, Wrong Score: Uncovering the Inconsistencies of LLM Evaluation in Multiple-Choice Question Answering [78.89231943329885]
  One of the most widely used tasks to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) is Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) In this work, we shed light on the inconsistencies of MCQA evaluation strategies, which can lead to inaccurate and misleading model comparisons.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-19T08:45:03Z)
• MicroVQA: A Multimodal Reasoning Benchmark for Microscopy-Based Scientific Research [57.61445960384384]
  MicroVQA consists of 1,042 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) curated by biology experts across diverse microscopy modalities.<n> Benchmarking on state-of-the-art MLLMs reveal a peak performance of 53%.<n>Expert analysis of chain-of-thought responses shows perception errors are the most frequent, followed by knowledge errors and then overgeneralization errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-17T17:33:10Z)
• Structured Outputs Enable General-Purpose LLMs to be Medical Experts [50.02627258858336]
  Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with open-ended medical questions.<n>We propose a novel approach utilizing structured medical reasoning.<n>Our approach achieves the highest Factuality Score of 85.8, surpassing fine-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T05:24:55Z)
• Humans Continue to Outperform Large Language Models in Complex Clinical Decision-Making: A Study with Medical Calculators [20.782328949004434]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been assessed for general medical knowledge using medical licensing exams. We evaluate the capability of both medical trainees and LLMs to recommend medical calculators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-08T15:50:19Z)
• LLM Robustness Against Misinformation in Biomedical Question Answering [50.98256373698759]
  The retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) approach is used to reduce the confabulation of large language models (LLMs) for question answering. We evaluate the effectiveness and robustness of four LLMs against misinformation in answering biomedical questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-27T16:23:26Z)
• Multiple Choice Questions and Large Languages Models: A Case Study with Fictional Medical Data [3.471944921180245]
  We developed a fictional medical benchmark focused on a non-existent gland, the Glianorex. This approach allowed us to isolate the knowledge of the LLM from its test-taking abilities. We evaluated various open-source, proprietary, and domain-specific LLMs using these questions in a zero-shot setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-04T15:08:56Z)
• Perception of Knowledge Boundary for Large Language Models through Semi-open-ended Question Answering [67.94354589215637]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used for knowledge-seeking yet suffer from hallucinations. In this paper, we perceive the LLMs' knowledge boundary (KB) with semi-open-ended questions (SoeQ) We find that GPT-4 performs poorly on SoeQ and is often unaware of its KB. Our auxiliary model, LLaMA-2-13B, is effective in discovering more ambiguous answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-23T10:00:14Z)
• Look Before You Decide: Prompting Active Deduction of MLLMs for Assumptive Reasoning [68.83624133567213]
  We show that most prevalent MLLMs can be easily fooled by the introduction of a presupposition into the question. We also propose a simple yet effective method, Active Deduction (AD), to encourage the model to actively perform composite deduction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T15:53:27Z)
• Can multiple-choice questions really be useful in detecting the abilities of LLMs? [15.756543037102256]
  Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are widely used in the evaluation of large language models (LLMs) The misalignment between the task and the evaluation method demands a thoughtful analysis of MCQ's efficacy. We evaluate nine LLMs on four question-answering (QA) datasets in two languages: Chinese and English.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-26T14:43:48Z)
• Artifacts or Abduction: How Do LLMs Answer Multiple-Choice Questions Without the Question? [15.308093827770474]
  We probe if large language models (LLMs) can perform multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) with choices-only prompts. This prompt bests a majority baseline in 11/12 cases, with up to 0.33 accuracy gain. We conduct an in-depth, black-box analysis on memorization, choice dynamics, and question inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T19:38:58Z)
• LLMs May Perform MCQA by Selecting the Least Incorrect Option [29.202758753639078]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have markedly enhanced performance across a variety of tasks.<n>The adoption of Multiple Choice Question Answering (MCQA) as a benchmark for assessing LLMs has gained considerable traction.<n>However, concerns regarding the robustness of this evaluative method persist.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T12:07:00Z)
• MKRAG: Medical Knowledge Retrieval Augmented Generation for Medical Question Answering [45.84961106102445]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often perform poorly on domain-specific tasks such as medical question answering (QA) We propose a comprehensive retrieval strategy to extract medical facts from an external knowledge base, and then inject them into the LLM's query prompt. Our retrieval-augmented Vicuna-7B model exhibited an accuracy improvement from 44.46% to 48.54%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-27T21:26:03Z)
• Augmenting Black-box LLMs with Medical Textbooks for Biomedical Question Answering [48.17095875619711]
  We present a system called LLMs Augmented with Medical Textbooks (LLM-AMT)<n>LLM-AMT integrates authoritative medical textbooks into the LLMs' framework using plug-and-play modules.<n>We found that medical textbooks as a retrieval corpus is proven to be a more effective knowledge database than Wikipedia in the medical domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-05T13:39:38Z)
• A Comparative Study of Open-Source Large Language Models, GPT-4 and Claude 2: Multiple-Choice Test Taking in Nephrology [0.6213359027997152]
  The study was conducted to evaluate the ability of LLM models to provide correct answers to nephSAP multiple-choice questions. The findings of this study potentially have significant implications for the future medical training and patient care.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-09T05:01:28Z)

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.