Plausibly Problematic Questions in Multiple-Choice Benchmarks for Commonsense Reasoning (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Many commonsense reasoning questions require a hard selection of a single correct answer . ambiguity and semantic mismatches are common in many MCQs . |
| Approach: | They collect plausibility judgments on 5 000 commonsense reasoning questions . they find that the answer rated most plausible does not match the benchmark gold answers . |
| Outcome: | Experiments with LLMS reveal low accuracy and high variation in performance on the subset . high plausibility rating for the most plausible answer is highlighted in bold . |
Similar Papers
LOGICAL-COMMONSENSEQA: A Benchmark for Logical Commonsense Reasoning (2026.acl-short)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | LOGICAL-COMMONSENSEQA benchmarks evaluate commonsense reasoning as logical composition over pairs of atomic statements . commonsensible reasoning is central to human cognition and a long-standing challenge in artificial intelligence and natural language understanding. |
| Approach: | They propose a benchmark that reframes commonsense reasoning as logical composition over pairs of atomic statements using plausibility-level operators. |
| Outcome: | LOGICAL-COMMONSENSEQA exposes fundamental reasoning limitations and provides a framework for advancing compositional commonsense reasoning. |
BenchMarker: An Education-Inspired Toolkit for Highlighting Flaws in Multiple-Choice Benchmarks (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
Nishant Balepur, Bhavya Rajasekaran, Hyunjin Jane Oh, Michael Xie, Atrey Desai, Vipul Gupta, Steven James Moore, Eunsol Choi, Rachel Rudinger, Jordan Lee Boyd-Graber
| Challenge: | Multiple-choice question answering (MCQ) is standard in NLP, but benchmarks lack rigorous quality control. |
| Approach: | They propose an education-inspired toolkit that uses LLM judges to flag flaws in MCQs . they validate the tool with annotations and run it to audit 12 benchmarks based on 19-rule education rubric . |
| Outcome: | The proposed toolkit flags three common MCQ flaws based on a 19-rule education rubric . contaminated MCqs tend to inflate accuracy, while writing errors lower it and change rankings . |
Which of These Best Describes Multiple Choice Evaluation with LLMs? A) Forced B) Flawed C) Fixable D) All of the Above (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Multiple choice question answering (MCQA) is popular for LLM evaluation due to its simplicity and human-like testing. |
| Approach: | They argue for a reform of multiple choice question answering (MCQA) they argue for more generative formats based on human testing . |
| Outcome: | The proposed reforms improve the quality of MCQA, the authors argue . they show that even when MCQ is a useful format, its datasets suffer from leakage, unanswerability, shortcuts and saturation. |
ReMedQA: Are We Done With Medical Multiple-Choice Benchmarks? (2026.eacl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) benchmarks show near-human accuracy . but a single accuracy score is a poor proxy for competence . |
| Approach: | They propose a medical multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) benchmark that augments three standard medical MCQA datasets with open-ended answers and systematically perturbed options. |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmarks show that high MCQA accuracy masks low reliability . MCQ is the dominant paradigm for assessing medical knowledge in large language models . |
Revisiting the Self-Consistency Challenges in Multi-Choice Question Formats for Large Language Model Evaluation (2024.lrec-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Multi-choice questions (MCQs) are a common method for assessing the world knowledge of large language models. |
| Approach: | They propose three knowledge-equivalent question variants to assess LLMs' world knowledge . they propose option position shuffle, option label replacement, and conversion to a True/False format . |
| Outcome: | The proposed questions are shuffle, label replacement, and True/False format. |
Can Multiple-choice Questions Really Be Useful in Detecting the Abilities of LLMs? (2024.lrec-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Multiple-choice questions (MCQs) are widely used in the evaluation of large language models (LLMs) however, there are concerns about whether MCQ can truly measure LLM’s capabilities. |
| Approach: | They propose to use multiple choice questions to evaluate large language models (LLMs) to assess their capabilities. |
| Outcome: | The proposed methods show that MCQs are less reliable than LFGQs in terms of expected calibration error. |
Arguments that Alter Minds: LLM Rationales Sway Human (and LLM) Notions of Plausibility (2026.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Experiments with LLMs reveal similar patterns of influence on human plausibility judgments of commonsense benchmark answers. |
| Approach: | They find that human plausibility judgments of commonsense benchmark answers are affected by implausibility arguments for or against an answer. |
| Outcome: | The results show that human judges find LLM rationales convincing and that human annotators agree on the most plausible answer when the plausibility gap is wide. |
HellaSwag-Pro: A Large-Scale Bilingual Benchmark for Evaluating the Robustness of LLMs in Commonsense Reasoning (2025.findings-acl)
Copied to clipboard
Xiaoyuan Li, Moxin Li, Rui Men, Yichang Zhang, Keqin Bao, Wenjie Wang, Fuli Feng, Dayiheng Liu, Junyang Lin
| Challenge: | Existing studies show that large language models are robust in commonsense reasoning . however, some variations in questions can lead to incorrect responses . |
| Approach: | They propose a large-scale bilingual benchmark consisting of 11,200 cases . they conduct extensive experiments on 41 representative LLMs . |
| Outcome: | The proposed benchmark systematically evaluates the robustness of large language models in commonsense reasoning. |
LLMs May Perform MCQA by Selecting the Least Incorrect Option (2025.coling-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Multiple Choice Question Answering (MCQA) is a fundamental format for various tasks in NLP, such as commonsense reasoning. |
| Approach: | They propose a method to increase the number of correct options in a dataset. |
| Outcome: | The proposed method improves the performance of multiple choice question answering (MCQA) and improves its accuracy. |
Garbage In, Reasoning Out? Why Benchmark Scores are Unreliable and What to Do About It (2026.findings-eacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Using social reasoning benchmarks, we uncover pervasive flaws in both benchmark items and evaluation methodology. |
| Approach: | They audit three widely used social reasoning benchmarks and identify flaws in their design and evaluation methodology. |
| Outcome: | The results challenge the validity of current benchmark-based claims about social reasoning in large language models. |