-
Automatic Generation of Inference Making Questions for Reading Comprehension Assessments
Authors:
Wanjing Anya Ma,
Michael Flor,
Zuowei Wang
Abstract:
Inference making is an essential but complex skill in reading comprehension (RC). Some inferences require resolving references across sentences, and some rely on using prior knowledge to fill in the detail that is not explicitly written in the text. Diagnostic RC questions can help educators provide more effective and targeted reading instruction and interventions for school-age students. We intro…
▽ More
Inference making is an essential but complex skill in reading comprehension (RC). Some inferences require resolving references across sentences, and some rely on using prior knowledge to fill in the detail that is not explicitly written in the text. Diagnostic RC questions can help educators provide more effective and targeted reading instruction and interventions for school-age students. We introduce a taxonomy of inference types for RC and use it to analyze the distribution of items within a diagnostic RC item bank. Next, we present experiments using GPT-4o to generate bridging-inference RC items for given reading passages via few-shot prompting, comparing conditions with and without chain-of-thought prompts. Generated items were evaluated on three aspects: overall item quality, appropriate inference type, and LLM reasoning, achieving high inter-rater agreements above 0.90. Our results show that GPT-4o produced 93.8% good-quality questions suitable for operational use in grade 3-12 contexts; however, only 42.6% of the generated questions accurately matched the targeted inference type. We conclude that combining automatic item generation with human judgment offers a promising path toward scalable, high-quality diagnostic RC assessments.
△ Less
Submitted 9 June, 2025;
originally announced June 2025.
-
Psychometric Alignment: Capturing Human Knowledge Distributions via Language Models
Authors:
Joy He-Yueya,
Wanjing Anya Ma,
Kanishk Gandhi,
Benjamin W. Domingue,
Emma Brunskill,
Noah D. Goodman
Abstract:
Language models (LMs) are increasingly used to simulate human-like responses in scenarios where accurately mimicking a population's behavior can guide decision-making, such as in developing educational materials and designing public policies. The objective of these simulations is for LMs to capture the variations in human responses, rather than merely providing the expected correct answers. Prior…
▽ More
Language models (LMs) are increasingly used to simulate human-like responses in scenarios where accurately mimicking a population's behavior can guide decision-making, such as in developing educational materials and designing public policies. The objective of these simulations is for LMs to capture the variations in human responses, rather than merely providing the expected correct answers. Prior work has shown that LMs often generate unrealistically accurate responses, but there are no established metrics to quantify how closely the knowledge distribution of LMs aligns with that of humans. To address this, we introduce "psychometric alignment," a metric that measures the extent to which LMs reflect human knowledge distribution. Assessing this alignment involves collecting responses from both LMs and humans to the same set of test items and using Item Response Theory to analyze the differences in item functioning between the groups. We demonstrate that our metric can capture important variations in populations that traditional metrics, like differences in accuracy, fail to capture. We apply this metric to assess existing LMs for their alignment with human knowledge distributions across three real-world domains. We find significant misalignment between LMs and human populations, though using persona-based prompts can improve alignment. Interestingly, smaller LMs tend to achieve greater psychometric alignment than larger LMs. Further, training LMs on human response data from the target distribution enhances their psychometric alignment on unseen test items, but the effectiveness of such training varies across domains.
△ Less
Submitted 22 July, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
-
DevBench: A multimodal developmental benchmark for language learning
Authors:
Alvin Wei Ming Tan,
Sunny Yu,
Bria Long,
Wanjing Anya Ma,
Tonya Murray,
Rebecca D. Silverman,
Jason D. Yeatman,
Michael C. Frank
Abstract:
How (dis)similar are the learning trajectories of vision-language models and children? Recent modeling work has attempted to understand the gap between models' and humans' data efficiency by constructing models trained on less data, especially multimodal naturalistic data. However, such models are often evaluated on adult-level benchmarks, with limited breadth in language abilities tested, and wit…
▽ More
How (dis)similar are the learning trajectories of vision-language models and children? Recent modeling work has attempted to understand the gap between models' and humans' data efficiency by constructing models trained on less data, especially multimodal naturalistic data. However, such models are often evaluated on adult-level benchmarks, with limited breadth in language abilities tested, and without direct comparison to behavioral data. We introduce DevBench, a multimodal benchmark comprising seven language evaluation tasks spanning the domains of lexical, syntactic, and semantic ability, with behavioral data from both children and adults. We evaluate a set of vision-language models on these tasks, comparing models and humans not only on accuracy but on their response patterns. Across tasks, models exhibit variation in their closeness to human response patterns, and models that perform better on a task also more closely resemble human behavioral responses. We also examine the developmental trajectory of OpenCLIP over training, finding that greater training results in closer approximations to adult response patterns. DevBench thus provides a benchmark for comparing models to human language development. These comparisons highlight ways in which model and human language learning processes diverge, providing insight into entry points for improving language models.
△ Less
Submitted 6 December, 2024; v1 submitted 14 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
-
Generating and Evaluating Tests for K-12 Students with Language Model Simulations: A Case Study on Sentence Reading Efficiency
Authors:
Eric Zelikman,
Wanjing Anya Ma,
Jasmine E. Tran,
Diyi Yang,
Jason D. Yeatman,
Nick Haber
Abstract:
Developing an educational test can be expensive and time-consuming, as each item must be written by experts and then evaluated by collecting hundreds of student responses. Moreover, many tests require multiple distinct sets of questions administered throughout the school year to closely monitor students' progress, known as parallel tests. In this study, we focus on tests of silent sentence reading…
▽ More
Developing an educational test can be expensive and time-consuming, as each item must be written by experts and then evaluated by collecting hundreds of student responses. Moreover, many tests require multiple distinct sets of questions administered throughout the school year to closely monitor students' progress, known as parallel tests. In this study, we focus on tests of silent sentence reading efficiency, used to assess students' reading ability over time. To generate high-quality parallel tests, we propose to fine-tune large language models (LLMs) to simulate how previous students would have responded to unseen items. With these simulated responses, we can estimate each item's difficulty and ambiguity. We first use GPT-4 to generate new test items following a list of expert-developed rules and then apply a fine-tuned LLM to filter the items based on criteria from psychological measurements. We also propose an optimal-transport-inspired technique for generating parallel tests and show the generated tests closely correspond to the original test's difficulty and reliability based on crowdworker responses. Our evaluation of a generated test with 234 students from grades 2 to 8 produces test scores highly correlated (r=0.93) to those of a standard test form written by human experts and evaluated across thousands of K-12 students.
△ Less
Submitted 10 October, 2023;
originally announced October 2023.
