Which of These Best Describes Multiple Choice Evaluation with LLMs? A) Forced B) Flawed C) Fixable D) All of the Above

Multiple choice question answering (MCQA) is popular for LLM evaluation due to its simplicity and human-like testing, but we argue for its reform. We first reveal flaws in MCQA's format, as it struggles to: 1) test generation/subjectivity; 2) match LLM use cases; and 3) fully test knowledge. We instead advocate for generative formats based on human testing-where LLMs construct and explain answers-better capturing user needs and knowledge while remaining easy to score. We then show even when MCQA is a useful format, its datasets suffer from: leakage; unanswerability; shortcuts; and saturation. In each issue, we give fixes from education, like rubrics to guide MCQ writing; scoring methods to bridle guessing; and Item Response Theory to build harder MCQs. Lastly, we discuss LLM errors in MCQA-robustness, biases, and unfaithful explanations-showing how our prior solutions better measure or address these issues. While we do not need to desert MCQA, we encourage more efforts in refining the task based on educational testing, advancing evaluations.

Whose Boat Does it Float? Improving Personalization in Preference Tuning via Inferred User Personas

LLMs are tuned to follow instructions (aligned) by learning which of two outputs users prefer for a prompt. However, this preference data format does not convey why users prefer responses that are chosen or rejected, so LLMs trained on these datasets cannot tailor responses to varied user needs. To surface these parameters of personalization, we apply abductive reasoning to preference data, inferring needs and interests of users, i.e. personas, that may prefer each output. We test this idea in two steps: Persona Inference (PI)-abductively inferring personas of users who prefer chosen or rejected outputs-and Persona Tailoring (PT)-training models to tailor responses to personas from PI. We find: 1) LLMs infer personas accurately explaining why different users may prefer both chosen or rejected outputs; 2) Training on preference data augmented with PI personas via PT boosts personalization, enabling models to support user-written personas; and 3) Rejected response personas form harder personalization evaluations, showing PT better aids users with uncommon preferences versus typical alignment methods. We argue for an abductive view of preferences for personalization, asking not only which response is better but when, why, and for whom.

Reverse Question Answering: Can an LLM Write a Question so Hard (or Bad) that it Can't Answer?

Question answering (QA)-producing correct answers for input questions-is popular, but we test a reverse question answering (RQA) task: given an input answer, generate a question with that answer. Past work tests QA and RQA separately, but we test them jointly, comparing their difficulty, aiding benchmark design, and assessing reasoning consistency. 16 LLMs run QA and RQA with trivia questions/answers, showing: 1) Versus QA, LLMs are much less accurate in RQA for numerical answers, but slightly more accurate in RQA for textual answers; 2) LLMs often answer their own invalid questions from RQA accurately in QA, so RQA errors are not from knowledge gaps alone; 3) RQA errors correlate with question difficulty and inversely correlate with answer frequencies in the Dolma corpus; and 4) LLMs struggle to give valid multi-hop questions. By finding question and answer types yielding RQA errors, we suggest improvements for LLM RQA reasoning.

Plausibly Problematic Questions in Multiple-Choice Benchmarks for Commonsense Reasoning

Questions involving commonsense reasoning about everyday situations often admit many $\textit{possible}$ or $\textit{plausible}$ answers. In contrast, multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks for commonsense reasoning require a hard selection of a single correct answer, which, in principle, should represent the $\textit{most}$ plausible answer choice. On $250$ MCQ items sampled from two commonsense reasoning benchmarks, we collect $5,000$ independent plausibility judgments on answer choices. We find that for over 20% of the sampled MCQs, the answer choice rated most plausible does not match the benchmark gold answers; upon manual inspection, we confirm that this subset exhibits higher rates of problems like ambiguity or semantic mismatch between question and answer choices. Experiments with LLMs reveal low accuracy and high variation in performance on the subset, suggesting our plausibility criterion may be helpful in identifying more reliable benchmark items for commonsense evaluation.

Is Your Large Language Model Knowledgeable or a Choices-Only Cheater?

Recent work shows that large language models (LLMs) can answer multiple-choice questions using only the choices, but does this mean that MCQA leaderboard rankings of LLMs are largely influenced by abilities in choices-only settings? To answer this, we use a contrast set that probes if LLMs over-rely on choices-only shortcuts in MCQA. While previous works build contrast sets via expensive human annotations or model-generated data which can be biased, we employ graph mining to extract contrast sets from existing MCQA datasets. We use our method on UnifiedQA, a group of six commonsense reasoning datasets with high choices-only accuracy, to build an 820-question contrast set. After validating our contrast set, we test 12 LLMs, finding that these models do not exhibit reliance on choice-only shortcuts when given both the question and choices. Thus, despite the susceptibility~of MCQA to high choices-only accuracy, we argue that LLMs are not obtaining high ranks on MCQA leaderboards just due to their ability to exploit choices-only shortcuts.

A SMART Mnemonic Sounds like "Glue Tonic": Mixing LLMs with Student Feedback to Make Mnemonic Learning Stick

Keyword mnemonics are memorable explanations that link new terms to simpler keywords. Prior works generate mnemonics for students, but they do not guide models toward mnemonics students prefer and aid learning. We build SMART, a mnemonic generator trained on feedback from real students learning new terms. To train SMART, we first fine-tune LLaMA-2 on a curated set of user-written mnemonics. We then use LLM alignment to enhance SMART: we deploy mnemonics generated by SMART in a flashcard app to find preferences on mnemonics students favor. We gather 2684 preferences from 45 students across two types: expressed (inferred from ratings) and observed (inferred from student learning), yielding three key findings. First, expressed and observed preferences disagree; what students think is helpful does not fully capture what is truly helpful. Second, Bayesian models can synthesize complementary data from multiple preference types into a single effectiveness signal. SMART is tuned via Direct Preference Optimization on this signal, which we show resolves ties and missing labels in the typical method of pairwise comparisons, augmenting data for LLM output quality gains. Third, mnemonic experts assess SMART as matching GPT-4, at much lower deployment costs, showing the utility of capturing diverse student feedback to align LLMs in education.

The Prompt Report: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Techniques

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) systems are being increasingly deployed across all parts of industry and research settings. Developers and end users interact with these systems through the use of prompting or prompt engineering. While prompting is a widespread and highly researched concept, there exists conflicting terminology and a poor ontological understanding of what constitutes a prompt due to the area's nascency. This paper establishes a structured understanding of prompts, by assembling a taxonomy of prompting techniques and analyzing their use. We present a comprehensive vocabulary of 33 vocabulary terms, a taxonomy of 58 text-only prompting techniques, and 40 techniques for other modalities. We further present a meta-analysis of the entire literature on natural language prefix-prompting.

KARL: Knowledge-Aware Retrieval and Representations aid Retention and Learning in Students

Flashcard schedulers are tools that rely on 1) student models to predict the flashcards a student knows; and 2) teaching policies to schedule cards based on these predictions. Existing student models, however, only use flashcard-level features, like the student's past responses, ignoring the semantic ties of flashcards. Deep Knowledge Tracing (DKT) models can capture semantic relations with language models, but are inefficient, lack content-rich datasets for evaluation, and require robust teaching policies. To address these issues, we design KARL, a DKT-inspired student model that uses retrieval and BERT embeddings for efficient and accurate student recall predictions. To test KARL, we collect a new dataset of diverse study history on trivia questions. KARL bests existing student models in AUC and calibration error. Finally, we propose a novel teaching policy that exploits the predictive power of DKT models to deploy KARL online. Based on 27 learners and 32 6-day study trajectories, KARL shows the ability to enhance medium-term educational learning, proving its efficacy for scheduling.

Artifacts or Abduction: How Do LLMs Answer Multiple-Choice Questions Without the Question?

Multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) is often used to evaluate large language models (LLMs). To see if MCQA assesses LLMs as intended, we probe if LLMs can perform MCQA with choices-only prompts, where models must select the correct answer only from the choices. In three MCQA datasets and four LLMs, this prompt bests a majority baseline in 11/12 cases, with up to 0.33 accuracy gain. To help explain this behavior, we conduct an in-depth, black-box analysis on memorization, choice dynamics, and question inference. Our key findings are threefold. First, we find no evidence that the choices-only accuracy stems from memorization alone. Second, priors over individual choices do not fully explain choices-only accuracy, hinting that LLMs use the group dynamics of choices. Third, LLMs have some ability to infer a relevant question from choices, and surprisingly can sometimes even match the original question. We hope to motivate the use of stronger baselines in MCQA benchmarks, the design of robust MCQA datasets, and further efforts to explain LLM decision-making.

It's Not Easy Being Wrong: Evaluating Process of Elimination Reasoning in Large Language Models

Chain-of-thought (COT) prompting can help large language models (LLMs) reason toward correct answers, but its efficacy in reasoning toward incorrect answers is unexplored. This strategy of process of elimination (PoE), when used with COT, has the potential to enhance interpretability in tasks like medical diagnoses of exclusion. Thus, we propose PoE with COT, a new task where LLMs must reason toward incorrect options on multiple-choice questions. We evaluate the ability of GPT-3.5, LLaMA-2, and Falcon to perform PoE with COT on 2-choice commonsense and scientific reasoning datasets. We show that PoE consistently underperforms directly choosing the correct answer. The agreement of these strategies is also lower than the self-consistency of each strategy. To study these issues further, we conduct an error analysis and give suggestions for future work.