TwinStar: A Novel Design for Enhanced Test Question Generation Using Dual-LLM Engine
Source abstract
Abstract
In light of the remarkable success of large language models (LLMs) in natural language understanding and generation, a trend of applying LLMs to professional domains with specialized requirements stimulates interest across various fields. It is desirable to further understand the level of intelligence that can be achieved by LLMs in solving domain-specific problems, as well as the resources that need to be invested accordingly. This paper studies the problem of generating high-quality test questions with specified knowledge points and target cognitive levels in AI-assisted teaching and learning. Our study shows that LLMs, even those as immense as GPT-4 or Bard, can hardly fulfill the design objectives, lacking clear focus on cognitive levels pertaining to specific knowledge points. In this paper, we explore the opportunity of enhancing the capability of LLMs through system design, instead of training models with substantial domain-specific data, consuming mass computing and memory resources. We propose a novel design scheme that orchestrates a dual-LLM engine, consisting of a question generation model and a cognitive-level evaluation model, built with fine-tuned, lightweight baseline models and prompting technology to generate high-quality test questions. The experimental results show that the proposed design framework, TwinStar, outperforms the state-of-the-art LLMs for effective test question generation in terms of cognitive-level adherence and knowledge relevance. TwinStar implemented with ChatGLM2-6B improves the cognitive-level adherence by almost 50% compared to Bard and 21% compared to GPT-4.0. The overall improvement in the quality of test questions generated by TwinStar reaches 12.0% compared to Bard and 2% compared with GPT-4.0 while our TwinStar implementation consumes only negligible memory space compared with that of GPT-4.0. An implementation of TwinStar using LLaMA2-13B shows a similar trend of improvement.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Educational Technology and Assessment · Software Testing and Debugging Techniques · Topic Modeling
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Computer Science and Technology, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200063, China
Funding
NSFC · Shanghai STCSM
References (34)
Show source-provided references
1. OpenAI (2022). ChatGPT: Optimizing Language Models for Dialogue, OpenAI. Technical Report.
2. Achiam, J., Adler, S., Agarwal, S., Ahmad, L., Akkaya, I., Aleman, F.L., Almeida, D., Altenschmidt, J., Altman, S., and Anadkat, S. (2023). Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv.
3. Google DeepMind (2023). Gemini Technical Report: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Models, Google. Technical Report.
4. Anthropic (2024). The Claude 3 Model Family: Opus, Sonnet, Haiku, Anthropic. Technical Report.
5. Touvron, H., Lavril, T., Izacard, G., Martinet, X., Lachaux, M.A., Lacroix, T., Rozière, B., Goyal, N., Hambro, E., and Azhar, F. (2023). Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv.
6. Zeng, A., Liu, X., Du, Z., Wang, Z., Lai, H., Ding, M., Yang, Z., Xu, Y., Zheng, W., and Xia, X. (2022). Glm-130b: An open bilingual pre-trained model. arXiv.
7. Du, Z., Qian, Y., Liu, X., Ding, M., Qiu, J., Yang, Z., and Tang, J. (2022). GLM: General Language Model Pretraining with Autoregressive Blank Infifilling. arXiv.10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.26 ↗
8. Jiao, W., Wang, W., Huang, J.T., Wang, X., and Tu, Z. (2023). Is ChatGPT a good translator? A preliminary study. arXiv.
9. Laskar, M.T.R., Bari, M.S., Rahman, M., Bhuiyan, M.A.H., Joty, S., and Huang, J.X. (2023, January 9–14). A systematic study and comprehensive evaluation of chatgpt on benchmark datasets. Proceedings of the Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, Toronto, ON, Canada.10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.29 ↗
10. Wang, J., Liang, Y., Meng, F., Shi, H., Li, Z., Xu, J., Qu, J., and Zhou, J. (2023). Is chatgpt a good nlg evaluator? A preliminary study. arXiv.10.18653/v1/2023.newsum-1.1 ↗
11. Putting ChatGPT’s medical advice to the (Turing) test: Survey study10.2196/46939 ↗
12. Chen, S., Kann, B.H., Foote, M.B., Aerts, H.J., Savova, G.K., Mak, R.H., and Bitterman, D.S. (2023). The utility of ChatGPT for cancer treatment information. MedrXiv, 2003–2023.10.1101/2023.03.16.23287316 ↗
13. Blair-Stanek, A., Holzenberger, N., and Van Durme, B. (2023, January 19–23). Can GPT-3 perform statutory reasoning?. Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Braga, Portugal.10.1145/3594536.3595163 ↗
14. Yu, F., Quartey, L., and Schilder, F. (2022). Legal prompting: Teaching a language model to think like a lawyer. arXiv.
15. Exploring ChatGPT capabilities and limitations: A critical review of the nlp game changer
16. Malinka, K., Peresíni, M., Firc, A., Hujnák, O., and Janus, F. (2023, January 10–12). On the educational impact of chatgpt: Is artificial intelligence ready to obtain a university degree?. Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 1, Turku, Finland.10.1145/3587102.3588827 ↗
17. Susnjak, T. (2022). ChatGPT: The end of online exam integrity?. arXiv.
18. Bordt, S., and von Luxburg, U. (2023). Chatgpt participates in a computer science exam. arXiv.
19. Qu, Z., Yin, L., Yu, Z., and Wang, W. (2024). CourseGPT-zh: An educational large language model based on knowledge distillation incorporating prompt optimization. arXiv.
20. Muse, H., Bulathwela, S., and Yilmaz, E. (2023, January 7–14). Pre-training with scientific text improves educational question generation. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Washington, DC, USA.10.1609/aaai.v37i13.27004 ↗
21. Anderson, L.W., and Krathwohl, D.R. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Longman.
22. Singh, R., Gulwani, S., and Rajamani, S. (2012, January 22–26). Automatically generating algebra problems. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Toronto, ON, Canda.10.1609/aaai.v26i1.8341 ↗
23. Andersen, E., Gulwani, S., and Popovic, Z. (May, January 27). A trace-based framework for analyzing and synthesizing educational progressions. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, France.
24. Exploring Multiple-Objective Optimization for Efficient and Effective Test Paper Design with Dynamic Programming Guided Genetic Algorithm10.3934/mbe.2024162 ↗
25. Zhou, Q., and Huang, D. (29–1, January 29). Towards generating math word problems from equations and topics. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Natural Language Generation, Tokyo, Japan.
26. Liyanage, V., and Ranathunga, S. (2020, January 11–16). Multi-lingual mathematical word problem generation using long short term memory networks with enhanced input features. Proceedings of the 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, Marseille, France.
27. Xia, J., Wang, H., Zhuge, Q., and Sha, E. (2023). Knowledge Tracing Model and Student Profile Based on Clustering-Neural-Network. Appl. Sci., 13.10.3390/app13095220 ↗
28. Williams, S. (2011, January 4–6). Generating mathematical word problems. Proceedings of the 2011 AAAI Fall Symposium Series, Arlington, VA, USA.
29. Ahmed, U.Z., Gulwani, S., and Karkare, A. (2013, January 3–9). Automatically generating problems and solutions for natural deduction. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Beijing, China.
30. A neural network solves, explains, and generates university math problems by program synthesis and few-shot learning at human level10.1073/pnas.2123433119 ↗
31. Elkins, S., Kochmar, E., Serban, I., and Cheung, J.C. (2023, January 20–22). How Useful are Educational Questions Generated by Large Language Models?. Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, Kobe, Japan.10.1007/978-3-031-36336-8_83 ↗
32. Yahya, A.A., Toukal, Z., and Osman, A. (2012). Bloom’s taxonomy–based classification for item bank questions using support vector machines. Modern Advances in Intelligent Systems and Tools, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-30732-4_17 ↗
33. Question classification based on bloom’s taxonomy using enhanced tf-idf10.18517/ijaseit.8.4-2.6835 ↗
34. Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., Hill, W.H., and Krathwohl, D.R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain, Longman.