skip to main content
10.1145/3587828.3587838acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicscaConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Question Difficulty Prediction with External Knowledge

Published:20 June 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

The difficulty of test questions is an important indicator for educational examination and recommendation of personalized learning resources. Its evaluation mainly depends on the experience of experts, which is subjective. In recent years, question difficulty prediction (QDP) using neural networks has attracted more and more attention. Although these methods improve the QDP efficiency, it works ill for questions involving abstract concepts, such as numerical calculation, date, and questions whose answers require background knowledge. Therefore, we propose a difficulty prediction model based on rich knowledge fusion (RKF+), which solves the problem that the difficulty prediction models cannot obtain conceptual knowledge and background knowledge. The key is to introduce the attentional mechanism with a sentry vector, which can dynamically obtain the text representation and external knowledge representation of test questions. To further fusion the acquired external knowledge, our model added a bi-interaction layer. Finally, the validity of this model is verified on three different datasets. Besides, the importance of attentional mechanism and external knowledge representation is further analyzed by ablation experiment. In addition, based on a real English reading comprehension test dataset, we explore the influence of two kinds of external knowledge on the question difficulty prediction model.

References

  1. Fuchs LS, Fuchs D. Effects of Expert System Consultation Within Curriculum-based Measurement, Using a Reading Maze Task[J]. Exceptional Children, 1992, 58(5): 436-450.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Mao, J.F. (2008) .Gaokao mingti zhong QDP fangfa tansuo[J].Educational Sciences(06),22-26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Boopathiraj C, Chellamani K. Analysis of Test Items on Difficulty Level and Discrimination Index in the Test for Research in Education[J]. International Journal of Social Sciences & Interdisciplinary Research, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Flesch R. Journal of Applied Psychology[J]. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1948(3): 450-463. J. Clerk Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 3rd ed., vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon, 1892, pp.68–73.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Zhenya Huang, Qi Liu, Enhong Chen, Question difficulty prediction for reading problems in standard tests[C]//31st AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. San Francisco, 2017:1352–1359.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Yaneva V, Ha LA, Baldwin P, Predicting Item Survival for Multiple Choice Questions in a High-stakes Medical Exam[C]//12th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation.Marseille, 2020:6812- 6818.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. He J, Peng L, Sun B, Automatically Predict Question Difficulty for Reading Comprehension Exercises[C]//2021 IEEE 33rd International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI). IEEE, 2021: 1398-1402.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Alagumalai S, Curtis D D. Classical test theory[M]//Applied Rasch measurement: A book of exemplars: Papers in honour of John P. Keeves, 2005:1-14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Dibello L V, Roussos L A, Stout W. 31A Review of Cognitively Diagnostic Assessment and a Summary of Psychometric Models[J]. Handbook of Statistics,,,2006(6):979-1030.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Liu Y, Qi L, Wu R, Collaborative Learning Team Formation: A Cognitive Modeling Perspective[C]//21st International Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applications. Dallas, 2016:383-400. I. S. Jacobs and C. P. Bean, “Fine particles, thin films and exchange anisotropy,” in Magnetism, vol. III, G. T. Rado and H. Suhl, Eds. New York: Academic, 1963, pp. 271–350.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Hermann K M, Koisk, Tomá, Grefenstette E, Teaching Machines to Read and Comprehend[C]//29th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Montreal, 2015:1693-1701.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Wen H, Wang Z, Wang H, Short text understanding through lexical-semantic analysis[C]//31st IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering. Seoul, 2015:495-506.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. I. S. Jacobs and C. P. Bean, “Fine particles, thin films and exchange anisotropy,” in Magnetism, vol. III, G. T. Rado and H. Suhl, Eds. New York: Academic, 1963, pp. 271–350.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Tong, W. (2019) .Shuju qudong de shuxueshiti nanduyuce[J]. Computer Development and Research(5). :1007-1019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Liu Q, Huang Z, Huang Z, Finding Similar Exercises in Online Education Systems[C]//24th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. London, 2018:1821-1830.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Le, Y. (2020) . Ronghe waibuzhishi de jiqiyuedulijie fangfa yanjiu[D]. Harbin Institute of Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Xu J, Cai Y, Wu X, Incorporating Context-relevant Concepts Into Convolutional Neural Networks for Short Text Classification[J]. Neurocomputing, 2020, 386: 42-53.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Xu J, Cai Y. Incorporating Context-relevant Knowledge Into Convolutional Neural Networks for Short Text Classification[C]//Proceedings of the Aaai Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2019: 10067-10068.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Yang A, Wang Q, Liu J, Enhancing Pre-trained Language Representations with Rich Knowledge for Machine Reading Comprehension[C]//Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019: 2346-2357.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Pan X, Sun K, Yu D, Improving Question Answering with External Knowledge[J]. Arxiv Preprint Arxiv:1902.00993, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Wang H, Bansal M, Gimpel K, Machine Comprehension with Syntax, Frames, and Semantics[C]//Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (volume 2: Short Papers), 2015: 700-706.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Qiu D, Zhang Y, Feng X, Machine Reading Comprehension Using Structural Knowledge Graph-aware Network[C]//Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (emnlp-ijcnlp), 2019: 5896-5901.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Margatina K, Baziotis C, Potamianos A. Attention-based Conditioning Methods for External Knowledge Integration[J]. Arxiv Preprint Arxiv:1906.03674, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Sun K, Yu D, Yu D, Investigating Prior Knowledge for Challenging Chinese Machine Reading Comprehension[J]. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2020, 8: 141-155.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Wang Z, Wang H, Wen J, An Inference Approach to Basic Level of Categorization[C]//Proceedings of the 24th Acm International on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 2015: 653-662.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Yang B, Yih W, He X, Embedding Entities and Relations for Learning and Inference in Knowledge Bases[C]: International Conference on Learning Representations, Iclr, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Yang B, Mitchell T. Leveraging Knowledge Bases in Lstms for Improving Machine Reading[C]: Association for Computational Linguistics (acl), 2017: 1436-1446.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Yang A, Wang Q, Liu J, Enhancing Pre-trained Language Representations with Rich Knowledge for Machine Reading Comprehension[C]//Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019: 2346-2357.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Seo M, Kembhavi A, Farhadi A, Bidirectional Attention Flow for Machine Comprehension[J]. Arxiv Preprint Arxiv:1611.01603, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Yang B, Mitchell T. Leveraging Knowledge Bases in Lstms for Improving Machine Reading[C]: Association for Computational Linguistics (acl), 2017: 1436-1446.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Bird S, Loper E. Nltk: the Natural Language Toolkit[C]: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Desai T, Moldovan DI. Towards Predicting Difficulty of Reading Comprehension Questions[C]//The Thirty-second International Flairs Conference, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Song H, Yoon S, Park S. Question Difficulty Estimation Based on Attention Model for Question Answering[J]. Applied Sciences, 2021, 11(24): 12023.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Question Difficulty Prediction with External Knowledge

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      ICSCA '23: Proceedings of the 2023 12th International Conference on Software and Computer Applications
      February 2023
      385 pages
      ISBN:9781450398589
      DOI:10.1145/3587828

      Copyright © 2023 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 20 June 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
      • Research
      • Refereed limited
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)33
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format