Using Vision + Language Models to Predict Item Difficulty

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.04670v1
• Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2026 23:26:25 GMT
• Title: Using Vision + Language Models to Predict Item Difficulty
• Authors: Samin Khan,
• Abstract summary: We use GPT-4.1-nano to analyze items and generate predictions based on distinct feature sets.<n>The multimodal approach, using both visual and text features, yields the lowest mean absolute error (MAE) (0.224)<n>The best-performing multimodal model was applied to a held-out test set for external evaluation and achieved a mean squared error of 0.10805.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This project investigates the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to determine the difficulty of data visualization literacy test items. We explore whether features derived from item text (question and answer options), the visualization image, or a combination of both can predict item difficulty (proportion of correct responses) for U.S. adults. We use GPT-4.1-nano to analyze items and generate predictions based on these distinct feature sets. The multimodal approach, using both visual and text features, yields the lowest mean absolute error (MAE) (0.224), outperforming the unimodal vision-only (0.282) and text-only (0.338) approaches. The best-performing multimodal model was applied to a held-out test set for external evaluation and achieved a mean squared error of 0.10805, demonstrating the potential of LLMs for psychometric analysis and automated item development.

Related papers

• Evaluating the encoding competence of visual language models using uncommon actions [5.816389980109022]
  UAIT is a new evaluation benchmark designed to test the semantic understanding ability of visual language models (VLMs) in uncommon-sense action scenes.<n>We synthesize high-quality uncommon-sense image-text samples using large language models, few-shot prompt engineering, and text-to-image generation.<n>We evaluate multiple state-of-the-art visual language models and compare them with models based on contrastive learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T17:15:45Z)
• Text-Based Approaches to Item Difficulty Modeling in Large-Scale Assessments: A Systematic Review [18.045716459188366]
  Item difficulty plays a crucial role in test performance, interpretability of scores, and equity for all test-takers, especially in large-scale assessments.<n>Traditional approaches to item difficulty modeling rely on field testing and classical test theory (CTT)-based item analysis or item response theory (IRT) calibration.<n>This paper reviews and synthesizes 37 articles on automated item difficulty prediction in large-scale assessment settings published through May 2025.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-27T20:19:39Z)
• Text2Vis: A Challenging and Diverse Benchmark for Generating Multimodal Visualizations from Text [30.74255946385862]
  We introduce Text2Vis, a benchmark designed to assess text-to-visualization models.<n>It comprises 1,985 samples, each with a data table, natural language query, short answer, visualization code, and annotated charts.<n>It reveals significant performance gaps, highlighting key challenges, and offering insights for future advancements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-26T14:59:04Z)
• ChartMuseum: Testing Visual Reasoning Capabilities of Large Vision-Language Models [48.99485386990197]
  We conduct a case study using a synthetic dataset solvable only through visual reasoning.<n>We then introduce ChartMuseum, a new Chart Question Answering (QA) benchmark containing 1,162 expert-annotated questions.<n>Although humans achieve 93% accuracy, the best-performing model Gemini-2.5-Pro attains only 63.0%, and the leading open-source LVLM Qwen2.5-VL-72B-Instruct achieves only 38.5%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T17:59:27Z)
• VisuLogic: A Benchmark for Evaluating Visual Reasoning in Multi-modal Large Language Models [121.03333569013148]
  We introduce VisuLogic: a benchmark of 1,000 human-verified problems across six categories.<n>These types of questions can be evaluated to assess the visual reasoning capabilities of MLLMs from multiple perspectives.<n>Most models score below 30% accuracy-only slightly above the 25% random baseline and far below the 51.4% achieved by humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T17:59:53Z)
• VOILA: Evaluation of MLLMs For Perceptual Understanding and Analogical Reasoning [63.0285363282581]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have become a powerful tool for integrating visual and textual information.<n>We introduce VOILA, a benchmark designed to evaluate MLLMs' perceptual understanding and abstract relational reasoning.<n>We reveal that current MLLMs struggle to comprehend inter-image relationships and exhibit limited capabilities in high-level relational reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T23:36:19Z)
• VHELM: A Holistic Evaluation of Vision Language Models [75.88987277686914]
  We present the Holistic Evaluation of Vision Language Models (VHELM) VHELM aggregates various datasets to cover one or more of the 9 aspects: visual perception, knowledge, reasoning, bias, fairness, multilinguality, robustness, toxicity, and safety. Our framework is designed to be lightweight and automatic so that evaluation runs are cheap and fast.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T17:46:34Z)
• PUB: Plot Understanding Benchmark and Dataset for Evaluating Large Language Models on Synthetic Visual Data Interpretation [2.1184929769291294]
  This paper presents a novel synthetic dataset designed to evaluate the proficiency of large language models in interpreting data visualizations. Our dataset is generated using controlled parameters to ensure comprehensive coverage of potential real-world scenarios. We employ multimodal text prompts with questions related to visual data in images to benchmark several state-of-the-art models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-04T11:19:17Z)
• NPHardEval4V: Dynamic Evaluation of Large Vision-Language Models with Effects of Vision [64.83085920775316]
  We introduce NPHardEval4V, a multimodal benchmark suite grounded in four classical NP-hard problems.<n>Each task is presented through a combination of structured visual layouts and textual prompts, designed to assess the ability of LVLMs to perform reasoning under visual-linguistic constraints.<n>Our results show that while these models perform reasonably well on perception-based inputs, they struggle with global optimization, abstraction, and constraint satisfaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-04T07:10:31Z)
• Pushing Boundaries: Exploring Zero Shot Object Classification with Large Multimodal Models [0.09264362806173355]
  Large Language and Vision Assistant models (LLVAs) engage users in rich conversational experiences intertwined with image-based queries. This paper takes a unique perspective on LMMs, exploring their efficacy in performing image classification tasks using tailored prompts. Our study includes a benchmarking analysis across four diverse datasets: MNIST, Cats Vs. Dogs, Hymnoptera (Ants Vs. Bees), and an unconventional dataset comprising Pox Vs. Non-Pox skin images.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-30T03:19:54Z)
• ELEVATER: A Benchmark and Toolkit for Evaluating Language-Augmented Visual Models [102.63817106363597]
  We build ELEVATER, the first benchmark to compare and evaluate pre-trained language-augmented visual models. It consists of 20 image classification datasets and 35 object detection datasets, each of which is augmented with external knowledge. We will release our toolkit and evaluation platforms for the research community.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-19T10:23:42Z)

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.