Multiple-choice cloze questions are commonly used to assess linguistic proficiency and comprehension. However, generating high-quality distractors remains challenging, as existing methods often lack adaptability and control over difficulty levels, and the absence of difficulty-annotated datasets further hinders progress. To address these issues, we propose a novel framework for generating distractors with controllable difficulty by leveraging both data augmentation and a multitask learning strategy. First, to create a high-quality, difficulty-annotated dataset, we introduce a two-way distractor generation process in order to produce diverse and plausible distractors. These candidates are subsequently refined through filtering and then categorized by difficulty using an ensemble QA system. Second, this newly created dataset is leveraged to train a difficulty-controllable generation model via multitask learning. The framework includes carefully designed auxiliary tasks that enhance the model's semantic understanding of distractors and its ability to estimate their difficulty. Experimental results demonstrate that our method generates high-quality distractors across difficulty levels and substantially outperforms GPT-4o in aligning distractor difficulty with human perception.

Distractors--incorrect but plausible answer choices in multiple-choice questions (MCQs)--play a critical role in educational assessment by diagnosing student misconceptions. Recent work has leveraged large language models (LLMs) to generate shared, group-level distractors by learning common error patterns across large student populations. However, such distractors often fail to capture the diverse reasoning errors of individual students, limiting their diagnostic effectiveness. To address this limitation, we introduce the task of personalized distractor generation, which aims to generate tailored distractors based on individual misconceptions inferred from each student's past question-answering (QA) records, ensuring every student receives options that effectively exposes their specific reasoning errors. While promising, this task is challenging because each student typically has only a few QA records, which often lack the student's underlying reasoning processes, making training-based group-level approaches infeasible. To overcome this, we propose a training-free two-stage framework. In the first stage, we construct a student-specific misconception prototype by applying Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) to recover the student's reasoning trajectories from past incorrect answers. In the second stage, this prototype guides the simulation of the student's reasoning on new questions, enabling the generation of personalized distractors that align with the student's recurring misconceptions. Experiments show that our approach achieves the best performance in generating plausible, personalized distractors for 140 students, and also effectively generalizes to group-level settings, highlighting its robustness and adaptability.

This paper introduces DualReward, a novel reinforcement learning framework for automatic distractor generation in cloze tests. Unlike conventional approaches that rely primarily on supervised learning or static generative models, our method employs a dual reward structure with adaptive scaling that differentiates between human-created gold standard distractors and model-generated candidates. The framework dynamically adjusts reward signal intensity based on model performance and confidence. We evaluate our approach on both passage-level (CLOTH-F) and sentence-level (MCQ) cloze test datasets, demonstrating consistent improvements over state-of-the-art baselines. Experimental results show that our adaptive reward scaling mechanism provides modest but consistent benefits on homogeneous datasets (CLOTH-F) and more substantial improvements (3.48-3.86% in P@1) on diverse, cross-domain data (MCQ), suggesting its particular effectiveness for handling varied question types and domains. Our work offers a flexible framework that effectively balances learning from reliable human examples while exploring novel, high-quality distractors for automated test generation.

Clinical tasks such as diagnosis and treatment require strong decision-making abilities, highlighting the importance of rigorous evaluation benchmarks to assess the reliability of large language models (LLMs). In this work, we introduce a knowledge-guided data augmentation framework that enhances the difficulty of clinical multiple-choice question (MCQ) datasets by generating distractors (i.e., incorrect choices that are similar to the correct one and may confuse existing LLMs). Using our KG-based pipeline, the generated choices are both clinically plausible and deliberately misleading. Our approach involves multi-step, semantically informed walks on a medical knowledge graph to identify distractor paths-associations that are medically relevant but factually incorrect-which then guide the LLM in crafting more deceptive distractors. We apply the designed knowledge graph guided distractor generation (KGGDG) pipline, to six widely used medical QA benchmarks and show that it consistently reduces the accuracy of state-of-the-art LLMs. These findings establish KGGDG as a powerful tool for enabling more robust and diagnostic evaluations of medical LLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate distractors for multiple-choice questions (MCQs), especially in domains like math education. However, existing approaches are limited in ensuring that the generated distractors are consistent with common student errors. We propose LookAlike, a method that improves error-distractor consistency via preference optimization. Our two main innovations are: (a) mining synthetic preference pairs from model inconsistencies, and (b) alternating supervised fine-tuning (SFT) with Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to stabilize training. Unlike prior work that relies on heuristics or manually annotated preference data, LookAlike uses its own generation inconsistencies as dispreferred samples, thus enabling scalable and stable training. Evaluated on a real-world dataset of 1,400+ math MCQs, LookAlike achieves 51.6% accuracy in distractor generation and 57.2% in error generation under LLM-as-a-judge evaluation, outperforming an existing state-of-the-art method (45.6% / 47.7%). These improvements highlight the effectiveness of preference-based regularization and inconsistency mining for generating consistent math MCQ distractors at scale.

As artificial intelligence systems become increasingly prevalent in education, a fundamental challenge emerges: how can we verify if an AI truly understands how students think and reason? Traditional evaluation methods like measuring learning gains require lengthy studies confounded by numerous variables. We present a novel evaluation framework based on a two-phase Turing-like test. In Phase 1, students provide open-ended responses to questions, revealing natural misconceptions. In Phase 2, both AI and human experts, conditioned on each student's specific mistakes, generate distractors for new related questions. By analyzing whether students select AI-generated distractors at rates similar to human expert-generated ones, we can validate if the AI models student cognition. We prove this evaluation must be conditioned on individual responses - unconditioned approaches merely target common misconceptions. Through rigorous statistical sampling theory, we establish precise requirements for high-confidence validation. Our research positions conditioned distractor generation as a probe into an AI system's fundamental ability to model student thinking - a capability that enables adapting tutoring, feedback, and assessments to each student's specific needs.

In designing multiple-choice questions (MCQs) in education, creating plausible distractors is crucial for identifying students' misconceptions and gaps in knowledge and accurately assessing their understanding. However, prior studies on distractor generation have not paid sufficient attention to enhancing the difficulty of distractors, resulting in reduced effectiveness of MCQs. This study presents a pipeline for training a model to generate distractors that are more likely to be selected by students. First, we train a pairwise ranker to reason about students' misconceptions and assess the relative plausibility of two distractors. Using this model, we create a dataset of pairwise distractor ranks and then train a distractor generator via Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to generate more plausible distractors. Experiments on computer science subjects (Python, DB, MLDL) demonstrate that our pairwise ranker effectively identifies students' potential misunderstandings and achieves ranking accuracy comparable to human experts. Furthermore, our distractor generator outperforms several baselines in generating plausible distractors and produces questions with a higher item discrimination index (DI).

Vocabulary acquisition is essential to second language learning, as it underpins all core language skills. Accurate vocabulary assessment is particularly important in standardized exams, where test items evaluate learners' comprehension and contextual use of words. Previous research has explored methods for generating distractors to aid in the design of English vocabulary tests. However, current approaches often rely on lexical databases or predefined rules, and frequently produce distractors that risk invalidating the question by introducing multiple correct options. In this study, we focus on English vocabulary questions from Taiwan's university entrance exams. We analyze student response distributions to gain insights into the characteristics of these test items and provide a reference for future research. Additionally, we identify key limitations in how large language models (LLMs) support teachers in generating distractors for vocabulary test design. To address these challenges, we propose the iterative selection with self-review (ISSR) framework, which makes use of a novel LLM-based self-review mechanism to ensure that the distractors remain valid while offering diverse options. Experimental results show that ISSR achieves promising performance in generating plausible distractors, and the self-review mechanism effectively filters out distractors that could invalidate the question.

Recent advancements in Natural Language Processing (NLP) have impacted numerous sub-fields such as natural language generation, natural language inference, question answering, and more. However, in the field of question generation, the creation of distractors for multiple-choice questions (MCQ) remains a challenging task. In this work, we present a simple, generic framework for distractor generation using readily available Pre-trained Language Models (PLMs). Unlike previous methods, our framework relies solely on pre-trained language models and does not require additional training on specific datasets. Building upon previous research, we introduce a two-stage framework consisting of candidate generation and candidate selection. Our proposed distractor generation framework outperforms previous methods without the need for training or fine-tuning. Human evaluations confirm that our approach produces more effective and engaging distractors. The related codebase is publicly available at https://github.com/obss/disgem.

High-quality distractors are crucial to both the assessment and pedagogical value of multiple-choice questions (MCQs), where manually crafting ones that anticipate knowledge deficiencies or misconceptions among real students is difficult. Meanwhile, automated distractor generation, even with the help of large language models (LLMs), remains challenging for subjects like math. It is crucial to not only identify plausible distractors but also understand the error behind them. In this paper, we introduce DiVERT (Distractor Generation with Variational Errors Represented as Text), a novel variational approach that learns an interpretable representation of errors behind distractors in math MCQs. Through experiments on a real-world math MCQ dataset with 1,434 questions used by hundreds of thousands of students, we show that DiVERT, despite using a base open-source LLM with 7B parameters, outperforms state-of-the-art approaches using GPT-4o on downstream distractor generation. We also conduct a human evaluation with math educators and find that DiVERT leads to error labels that are of comparable quality to human-authored ones.