The wording of natural language prompts has been shown to influence the performance of large language models (LLMs), yet the role of politeness and tone remains underexplored. In this study, we investigate how varying levels of prompt politeness affect model accuracy on multiple-choice questions. We created a dataset of 50 base questions spanning mathematics, science, and history, each rewritten into five tone variants: Very Polite, Polite, Neutral, Rude, and Very Rude, yielding 250 unique prompts. Using ChatGPT 4o, we evaluated responses across these conditions and applied paired sample t-tests to assess statistical significance. Contrary to expectations, impolite prompts consistently outperformed polite ones, with accuracy ranging from 80.8% for Very Polite prompts to 84.8% for Very Rude prompts. These findings differ from earlier studies that associated rudeness with poorer outcomes, suggesting that newer LLMs may respond differently to tonal variation. Our results highlight the importance of studying pragmatic aspects of prompting and raise broader questions about the social dimensions of human-AI interaction.

The primary goal of this study is to develop and evaluate an innovative prompting technique, AnaQuest, for generating multiple-choice questions (MCQs) using a pre-trained large language model. In AnaQuest, the choice items are sentence-level assertions about complex concepts. The technique integrates formative and summative assessments. In the formative phase, students answer open-ended questions for target concepts in free text. For summative assessment, AnaQuest analyzes these responses to generate both correct and incorrect assertions. To evaluate the validity of the generated MCQs, Item Response Theory (IRT) was applied to compare item characteristics between MCQs generated by AnaQuest, a baseline ChatGPT prompt, and human-crafted items. An empirical study found that expert instructors rated MCQs generated by both AI models to be as valid as those created by human instructors. However, IRT-based analysis revealed that AnaQuest-generated questions - particularly those with incorrect assertions (foils) - more closely resembled human-crafted items in terms of difficulty and discrimination than those produced by ChatGPT.

Artificial Intelligence (AI)-generated feedback in educational settings has garnered considerable attention due to its potential to enhance learning outcomes. However, a comprehensive understanding of the linguistic characteristics of AI-generated feedback, including readability, lexical richness, and adaptability across varying challenge levels, remains limited. This study delves into the linguistic and structural attributes of feedback generated by Google's Gemini 1.5-flash text model for computer science multiple-choice questions (MCQs). A dataset of over 1,200 MCQs was analyzed, considering three difficulty levels (easy, medium, hard) and three feedback tones (supportive, neutral, challenging). Key linguistic metrics, such as length, readability scores (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level), vocabulary richness, and lexical density, were computed and examined. A fine-tuned RoBERTa-based multi-task learning (MTL) model was trained to predict these linguistic properties, achieving a Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of 2.0 for readability and 0.03 for vocabulary richness. The findings reveal significant interaction effects between feedback tone and question difficulty, demonstrating the dynamic adaptation of AI-generated feedback within diverse educational contexts. These insights contribute to the development of more personalized and effective AI-driven feedback mechanisms, highlighting the potential for improved learning outcomes while underscoring the importance of ethical considerations in their design and deployment.

Research on evaluatin g and analyzing large language models (LLMs) has been extensive for high - resource languages such as English, yet their performance in languages such as Persian has received considerably less attention. This paper introduces FarsEval - PKBETS benchmark, a subset of FarsEval project for evaluat ing large language models in Persian. This benchmark consists of 4,000 questions and answers in various formats, including multiple - choice, short - answer, and descriptive responses. It covers a wide range of domains and tasks, including medicine, law, religion, Persian language, encyclopedic knowledge, human preferences, social knowledge, ethics and bias, text generation, and respecting others' rights. This benchmark incorporates linguistic, cultural, and local considera tions relevant to the Persian language and Iran. To ensure the questions are challenging for current LLMs, three models -- Llama3 - 70B, PersianMind, and Dorna -- were evaluated using this benchmark. Their average accuracy was below 50%, meaning they provided full y correct answers to fewer than half of the questions. These results indicate that current language models are still far from being able to solve this benchmark.

Recent work found that LLMs are sensitive to a wide range of arbitrary prompt dimensions, including the type of delimiters, answer enumerators, instruction wording, and more. This throws into question popular single-prompt evaluation practices. We present DOVE (Dataset Of Variation Evaluation) a large-scale dataset containing prompt perturbations of various evaluation benchmarks. In contrast to previous work, we examine LLM sensitivity from an holistic perspective, and assess the joint effects of perturbations along various dimensions, resulting in thousands of perturbations per instance. We evaluate several model families against DOVE, leading to several findings, including efficient methods for choosing well-performing prompts, observing that few-shot examples reduce sensitivity, and identifying instances which are inherently hard across all perturbations. DOVE consists of more than 250M prompt perturbations and model outputs, which we make publicly available to spur a community-wide effort toward meaningful, robust, and efficient evaluation. Browse the data, contribute, and more: https://slab-nlp.github.io/DOVE/

Large Language Models (LLMs) are commonly evaluated using human-crafted benchmarks, under the premise that higher scores implicitly reflect stronger human-like performance. However, there is growing concern that LLMs may ``game" these benchmarks due to data leakage, achieving high scores while struggling with tasks simple for humans. To substantively address the problem, we create GAOKAO-Eval, a comprehensive benchmark based on China's National College Entrance Examination (Gaokao), and conduct ``closed-book" evaluations for representative models released prior to Gaokao. Contrary to prevailing consensus, even after addressing data leakage and comprehensiveness, GAOKAO-Eval reveals that high scores still fail to truly reflect human-aligned capabilities. To better understand this mismatch, We introduce the Rasch model from cognitive psychology to analyze LLM scoring patterns and identify two key discrepancies: 1) anomalous consistent performance across various question difficulties, and 2) high variance in performance on questions of similar difficulty. In addition, We identified inconsistent grading of LLM-generated answers among teachers and recurring mistake patterns. we find that the phenomenons are well-grounded in the motivations behind OpenAI o1, and o1's reasoning-as-difficulties can mitigate the mismatch. These results show that GAOKAO-Eval can reveal limitations in LLM capabilities not captured by current benchmarks and highlight the need for more LLM-aligned difficulty analysis.

Background: Over the past few decades, the process and methodology of automated question generation (AQG) have undergone significant transformations. Recent progress in generative natural language models has opened up new potential in the generation of educational content. Objectives: This paper explores the potential of large language models (LLMs) for generating computer science questions that are sufficiently annotated for automatic learner model updates, are fully situated in the context of a particular course, and address the cognitive dimension understand. Methods: Unlike previous attempts that might use basic methods like ChatGPT, our approach involves more targeted strategies such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to produce contextually relevant and pedagogically meaningful learning objects. Results and Conclusions: Our results show that generating structural, semantic annotations works well. However, this success was not reflected in the case of relational annotations. The quality of the generated questions often did not meet educational standards, highlighting that although LLMs can contribute to the pool of learning materials, their current level of performance requires significant human intervention to refine and validate the generated content.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become foundational in modern language-driven applications, profoundly influencing daily life. A critical technique in leveraging their potential is role-playing, where LLMs simulate diverse roles to enhance their real-world utility. However, while research has highlighted the presence of social biases in LLM outputs, it remains unclear whether and to what extent these biases emerge during role-playing scenarios. In this paper, we introduce BiasLens, a fairness testing framework designed to systematically expose biases in LLMs during role-playing. Our approach uses LLMs to generate 550 social roles across a comprehensive set of 11 demographic attributes, producing 33,000 role-specific questions targeting various forms of bias. These questions, spanning Yes/No, multiple-choice, and open-ended formats, are designed to prompt LLMs to adopt specific roles and respond accordingly. We employ a combination of rule-based and LLM-based strategies to identify biased responses, rigorously validated through human evaluation. Using the generated questions as the benchmark, we conduct extensive evaluations of six advanced LLMs released by OpenAI, Mistral AI, Meta, Alibaba, and DeepSeek. Our benchmark reveals 72,716 biased responses across the studied LLMs, with individual models yielding between 7,754 and 16,963 biased responses, underscoring the prevalence of bias in role-playing contexts. To support future research, we have publicly released the benchmark, along with all scripts and experimental results.

Through a simple multiple choice language prompt a VQA model can operate as a zero-shot image classifier, producing a classification label. Compared to typical image encoders, VQA models offer an advantage: VQA-produced image embeddings can be infused with the most relevant visual information through tailored language prompts. Nevertheless, for most tasks, zero-shot VQA performance is lacking, either because of unfamiliar category names, or dissimilar pre-training data and test data distributions. We propose a simple method to boost VQA performance for image classification using only a handful of labeled examples and a multiple-choice question. This few-shot method is training-free and maintains the dynamic and flexible advantages of the VQA model. Rather than relying on the final language output, our approach uses multiple-choice questions to extract prompt-specific latent representations, which are enriched with relevant visual information. These representations are combined to create a final overall image embedding, which is decoded via reference to latent class prototypes constructed from the few labeled examples. We demonstrate this method outperforms both pure visual encoders and zero-shot VQA baselines to achieve impressive performance on common few-shot tasks including MiniImageNet, Caltech-UCSD Birds, and CIFAR-100. Finally, we show our approach does particularly well in settings with numerous diverse visual attributes such as the fabric, article-style, texture, and view of different articles of clothing, where other few-shot approaches struggle, as we can tailor our image representations only on the semantic features of interest.

We present NewsBench, a novel evaluation framework to systematically assess the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) for editorial capabilities in Chinese journalism. Our constructed benchmark dataset is focused on four facets of writing proficiency and six facets of safety adherence, and it comprises manually and carefully designed 1,267 test samples in the types of multiple choice questions and short answer questions for five editorial tasks in 24 news domains. To measure performances, we propose different GPT-4 based automatic evaluation protocols to assess LLM generations for short answer questions in terms of writing proficiency and safety adherence, and both are validated by the high correlations with human evaluations. Based on the systematic evaluation framework, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of ten popular LLMs which can handle Chinese. The experimental results highlight GPT-4 and ERNIE Bot as top performers, yet reveal a relative deficiency in journalistic safety adherence in creative writing tasks. Our findings also underscore the need for enhanced ethical guidance in machine-generated journalistic content, marking a step forward in aligning LLMs with journalistic standards and safety considerations.