Leonidas Zotos

Leonidas Zotos, Hedderik van Rijn, Malvina Nissim

Estimating the difficulty of multiple-choice questions would be great help for educators who must spend substantial time creating and piloting stimuli for their tests, and for learners who want to practice. Supervised approaches to difficulty estimation have yielded to date mixed results. In this contribution we leverage an aspect of generative large models which might be seen as a weakness when answering questions, namely their uncertainty, and exploit it towards exploring correlations between two different metrics of uncertainty, and the actual student response distribution. While we observe some present but weak correlations, we also discover that the models' behaviour is different in the case of correct vs wrong answers, and that correlations differ substantially according to the different question types which are included in our fine-grained, previously unused dataset of 451 questions from a Biopsychology course. In discussing our findings, we also suggest potential avenues to further leverage model uncertainty as an additional proxy for item difficulty.

Leonidas Zotos, Hedderik van Rijn, Malvina Nissim

When students are unsure of the correct answer to a multiple-choice question (MCQ), guessing is common practice. The availability heuristic, proposed by A. Tversky and D. Kahneman in 1973, suggests that the ease with which relevant instances come to mind, typically operationalised by the mere frequency of exposure, can offer a mental shortcut for problems in which the test-taker does not know the exact answer. Is simply choosing the option that comes most readily to mind a good strategy for answering MCQs? We propose a computational method of assessing the cognitive availability of MCQ options operationalised by concepts' prevalence in large corpora. The key finding, across three large question sets, is that correct answers, independently of the question stem, are significantly more available than incorrect MCQ options. Specifically, using Wikipedia as the retrieval corpus, we find that always selecting the most available option leads to scores 13.5% to 32.9% above the random-guess baseline. We further find that LLM-generated MCQ options show similar patterns of availability compared to expert-created options, despite the LLMs' frequentist nature and their training on large collections of textual data. Our findings suggest that availability should be considered in current and future work when computationally modelling student behaviour.

Daniel Scalena, Leonidas Zotos, Elisabetta Fersini et al.

With the rise of reasoning language models and test-time scaling methods as a paradigm for improving model performance, substantial computation is often required to generate multiple candidate sequences from the same prompt. This enables exploration of different reasoning paths toward the correct solution, however, allocates the same compute budget for each prompt. Grounded on the assumption that different prompts carry different degrees of complexity, and thus different computation needs, we propose EAGer, a training-free generation method that leverages model uncertainty through token-wise entropy distribution to reduce redundant computation and concurrently improve overall performance. EAGer allows branching to multiple reasoning paths only in the presence of high-entropy tokens, and then reallocates the saved compute budget to the instances where exploration of alternative paths is most needed. We find that across multiple open-source models on complex reasoning benchmarks such as AIME 2025, EAGer can reallocate the budget without accessing target labels, achieving the best efficiency-performance trade-off in terms of reasoning length and Pass@k. When target labels are accessible, EAGer generates up to 65% fewer tokens (hence saving compute) and achieves up to 37% improvement in Pass@k compared to the Full Parallel Sampling.

Leonidas Zotos, Hedderik van Rijn, Malvina Nissim

In an educational setting, an estimate of the difficulty of multiple-choice questions (MCQs), a commonly used strategy to assess learning progress, constitutes very useful information for both teachers and students. Since human assessment is costly from multiple points of view, automatic approaches to MCQ item difficulty estimation are investigated, yielding however mixed success until now. Our approach to this problem takes a different angle from previous work: asking various Large Language Models to tackle the questions included in three different MCQ datasets, we leverage model uncertainty to estimate item difficulty. By using both model uncertainty features as well as textual features in a Random Forest regressor, we show that uncertainty features contribute substantially to difficulty prediction, where difficulty is inversely proportional to the number of students who can correctly answer a question. In addition to showing the value of our approach, we also observe that our model achieves state-of-the-art results on the USMLE and CMCQRD publicly available datasets.

Leonidas Zotos, Ivo Pascal de Jong, Matias Valdenegro-Toro et al.

Estimating the difficulty of exam questions is essential for developing good exams, but professors are not always good at this task. We compare various Large Language Model-based methods with three professors in their ability to estimate what percentage of students will give correct answers on True/False exam questions in the areas of Neural Networks and Machine Learning. Our results show that the professors have limited ability to distinguish between easy and difficult questions and that they are outperformed by directly asking Gemini 2.5 to solve this task. Yet, we obtained even better results using uncertainties of the LLMs solving the questions in a supervised learning setting, using only 42 training samples. We conclude that supervised learning using LLM uncertainty can help professors better estimate the difficulty of exam questions, improving the quality of assessment.