With the rise of large language models (LLMs), they have become instrumental in applications such as Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). Yet evaluating these systems remains bottlenecked by the time and cost of building specialized assessment datasets. We introduce KNIGHT, an LLM-based, knowledge-graph-driven framework for generating multiple-choice question (MCQ) datasets from external sources. KNIGHT constructs a topic-specific knowledge graph, a structured and parsimonious summary of entities and relations, that can be reused to generate instructor-controlled difficulty levels, including multi-hop questions, without repeatedly re-feeding the full source text. This knowledge graph acts as a compressed, reusable state, making question generation a cheap read over the graph. We instantiate KNIGHT on Wikipedia/Wikidata while keeping the framework domain- and ontology-agnostic. As a case study, KNIGHT produces six MCQ datasets in History, Biology, and Mathematics. We evaluate quality on five criteria: fluency, unambiguity (single correct answer), topic relevance, option uniqueness, and answerability given the provided sources (as a proxy for hallucination). Results show that KNIGHT enables token- and cost-efficient generation from a reusable graph representation, achieves high quality across these criteria, and yields model rankings aligned with MMLU-style benchmarks, while supporting topic-specific and difficulty-controlled evaluation.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: KNIGHT High-level pipeline. Given a prompt/topic and depth, KNIGHT retrieves evidence, builds a focused KG, generates MCQs, and filters them to produce the final dataset.
Figure 2: KNIGHT architecture. (Left) A topic/prompt-driven RAG pipeline retrieves evidence, extracts triples, and curates a compact KG under depth budget dmax ; (Right) multi-hop paths are sampled to generate questions/distractors and validated for evidence-grounded answerability to form the final MCQA dataset.
Grammar Accuracy ↑
Fluency-automatic ↑
Fluency-human ↑
Topic
Plain
RAG
RAG+KG
RAG+Val
KNIGHT
Plain
RAG
RAG+KG
RAG+Val
KNIGHT
Plain
RAG
RAG+KG
RAG+Val
KNIGHT
History
0.9994
0.9993
0.9992
0.9990
0.9989
0.9498
0.9582
0.9536
0.9549
0.9581
4.8/5
4.7/5
4.7/5
4.7/5
4.8/5
Biology
0.9992
0.9994
0.9995
0.9989
0.9998
0.9702
0.9653
0.9681
0.9591
0.9626
4.9/5
4.9/5
4.8/5
4.8/5
4.9/5
Math
0.9978
0.9986
0.9981
0.9983
0.9991
0.9711
0.9671
0.9658
0.9602
0.9685
4.9/5
4.8/5
4.7/5
4.8/5
4.7/5
Table 1: Linguistic quality aggregated over Levels. Systems: Plain GPT-4o-mini, GPT-4o-mini+RAG, GPT-4o-mini+RAG+KG, GPT-4o-mini+RAG+Validator, and KNIGHT .
REPEATED ↓
SINGLE_KEY ↓
OPTION_UNIQUENESS ↓
ANSWERABLE ↓
Split
Plain
RAG
RAG+KG
RAG+Val
KNIGHT
Plain
RAG
RAG+KG
RAG+Val
KNIGHT
Plain
RAG
RAG+KG
RAG+Val
KNIGHT
Plain
RAG
RAG+KG
RAG+Val
KNIGHT
History (L1)
20
19
15
2
0
10
4
6
3
2
8
5
5
5
3
26
10
8
10
6
Biology (L1)
19
17
16
3
1
16
5
6
3
1
4
3
5
5
2
19
8
7
9
4
Math (L1)
13
14
14
1
0
11
4
6
4
2
5
4
4
4
2
20
8
6
8
5
History (L3)
14
11
9
1
1
15
6
7
7
2
7
5
5
4
3
24
13
9
12
6
Biology (L3)
15
13
12
1
1
14
5
6
5
2
6
4
4
3
1
21
10
7
8
4
Table 2: Human audit flags per 100 items (lower is better). All systems use GPT-4o-mini : Plain, RAG, RAG+KG, RAG+Val, and KNIGHT .
Topic Relevance Score (Entailment) ↑
Topic Relevance (LLM) ↑
Human TOPIC Flags ↓
Off-topic Rate (LLM ∩ Entailment) ↓
Split
Plain
RAG
RAG+KG
RAG+Val
KNIGHT
Plain
RAG
RAG+KG
RAG+Val
KNIGHT
Plain
RAG
RAG+KG
RAG+Val
KNIGHT
Plain
RAG
RAG+KG
RAG+Val
KNIGHT
History (L1)
0.9432
0.9938
0.8080
0.9945
0.8214
0.8318
0.9116
0.7301
0.9218
0.7692
7
5
17
4
8
6%
4%
19.3%
3%
10.6%
Biology (L1)
0.9156
0.9885
0.7962
0.9888
0.9053
0.8611
0.9542
0.7260
0.9619
0.7979
4
3
15
3
6
3%
1%
18.0%
1%
5.5%
Math (L1)
0.9219
0.9983
0.8103
0.9989
0.8852
0.8322
0.9092
0.8211
0.9514
0.8418
8
5
14
5
7
7%
4%
14.7%
4%
7.3%
History (L3)
0.9086
0.9975
0.5765
0.9981
0.8974
0.8115
0.8884
0.5291
0.9384
0.8124
9
6
42
5
9
8%
6%
34.4%
5%
8.1%
Biology (L3)
0.9309
0.9975
0.5971
0.9977
0.8832
0.8575
0.9205
0.5430
0.9381
0.8966
8
5
39
4
3
5%
3%
22.4%
3%
3.4%
Table 3: Topic relevance (entailment and LLM; ↑ ), expert TOPIC flags ( ↓ ), and off-topic rate as the intersection of automated checks (LLM ∩ Entailment; ↓ ) across systems (all with GPT-4o-mini ).
Mean Entropy H↑
Std. Dev. of H↑
Probe Acc. (%) ↓
Split
Plain
RAG
RAG+KG
RAG+Val
KNIGHT
Plain
RAG
RAG+KG
RAG+Val
KNIGHT
Plain
RAG
RAG+KG
RAG+Val
KNIGHT
History (L1)
0.0
0.0106
0.0122
0.0098
0.0134
0.0
0.0058
0.0692
0.0046
0.0855
100.00
99.00
88.00
98.00
86.83
Biology (L1)
0.0
0.0038
0.0096
0.0046
0.0189
0.0
0.0007
0.0897
0.0004
0.0803
100.00
98.00
89.00
99.00
86.21
Math (L1)
0.0
0.0021
0.0256
0.0039
0.0231
0.0
0.0004
0.0991
0.0005
0.1084
100.00
100.00
84.00
98.00
84.29
History (L3)
0.0
0.0
0.0435
0.0011
0.0489
0.0
0.0
0.1846
0.0002
0.1703
100.00
99.00
69.00
99.00
66.29
Biology (L3)
0.0
0.0017
0.0191
0.0039
0.0278
0.0
0.0003
0.1156
0.0003
0.1144
100.00
99.00
71.00
99.00
66.48
Table 4: Distractor competition via predictive entropy. Mean and standard deviation of predictive entropy ( H ) (higher ↑ = more competitive distractors) and probe accuracy (lower ↓ = harder items) using LLaMA 3.2-3B-Instruct as a fixed probe.
History
Biology
Math
KNIGHT Avg.
MMLU
ARC
CSQA
RACE
MedMCQA
OBQA
Bench Avg.
Model
L1
L3
L1
L3
L1
L3
GPT-4o [ 63 ]
92.95
86.39
95.98
87.11
95.30
86.41
90.52 1st
79.09
86.31
70.28
67.87
57.85
67.21
71.45 1st
Mistral Large [ 64 ]
92.19
84.16
95.18
86.84
95.07
84.10
89.59 2nd
68.76
72.32
55.35
70.17
43.44
58.66
61.45 2nd
Llama3-70B-Instruct [ 65 ]
92.12
85.15
94.12
86.08
95.03
84.67
89.53 3rd
59.67
67.09
55.49
58.21
41.67
40.94
53.85 3rd
Claude 3 Haiku [ 66 ]
91.95
81.64
95.05
83.40
93.97
81.60
87.70
57.35
63.89
55.87
57.20
40.57
42.32
52.87
Qwen1.5 (1.8B) [ 67 ]
76.76
72.45
79.88
72.89
75.84
71.43
74.88
9.99
15.84
31.13
34.91
4.70
20.37
19.49
Table 5: Benchmark utility of KNIGHT . Accuracy (%) of multiple models on KNIGHT , alongside standard MCQ benchmarks. KNIGHT Avg. averages over domains and levels; Bench Avg. averages over external suites. Superscripts denote rank by the corresponding average.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: Distribution of question lengths for each dataset (histograms), demonstrating an approximately normal shape.
Dataset
GRAMMAR
SINGLE_KEY
OPTION_UNIQUENESS
ANSWERABLE
TOPIC
Hist-1
1
2
3
6
9
Bio-1
0
1
2
4
7
Math-1
2
2
2
5
8
Hist-3
2
2
3
6
10
Bio-3
1
2
1
4
4
Math-3
2
3
2
6
4
Appendix
Table 6: Aggregated expert-raised flags indicating potential quality violations by dataset and criterion. Fewer than 5% of items trigger any flag, underscoring overall question quality.
Split (Entailment)
Welch t ( p )
MWU ( p )
BM ( p )
Hedges’ g Cliff’s δ
Holm p
History (L1)
−0.98 ( 0.33 )
p=0.41
p=0.37
−0.10∣−0.06
0.44
Biology (L1)
−1.12 ( 0.26 )
p=0.49
p=0.44
−0.09∣−0.05
0.52
Math (L1)
−1.35 ( 0.18 )
p=0.38
p=0.31
−0.12∣−0.07
0.18
History (L3)
−1.28 ( 0.20 )
p=0.46
p=0.40
−0.11∣−0.06
0.39
Biology (L3)
−0.89 ( 0.37 )
p=0.52
p=0.48
−0.08∣−0.04
0.60
Math (L3)
−1.41 ( 0.16 )
p=0.35
p=0.29
−0.13∣−0.07
0.21
Appendix
Table 7: Per-item topicality comparison (MNLI-based entailment). All tests are non-significant after Holm; effect sizes are uniformly small. The minimum Holm-adjusted p across splits is ≈0.18 .
Split (LLM)
Welch t ( p )
MWU ( p )
BM ( p )
Hedges’ g Cliff’s δ
Holm p
History (L1)
−1.05 ( 0.29 )
p=0.43
p=0.39
−0.11∣−0.06
0.46
Biology (L1)
−0.92 ( 0.36 )
p=0.47
p=0.41
−0.10∣−0.05
0.50
Math (L1)
−1.22 ( 0.22 )
p=0.39
p=0.33
−0.12∣−0.07
0.22
History (L3)
−1.18 ( 0.24 )
p=0.45
p=0.40
−0.11∣−0.06
0.41
Biology (L3)
−0.71 ( 0.48 )
p=0.54
p=0.50
−0.08∣−0.04
0.65
Math (L3)
−1.36 ( 0.17 )
p=0.36
p=0.30
−0.13∣−0.07
0.20
Appendix
Table 8: Per-item topicality comparison (LLM-based topicality score). All tests are non-significant after Holm; effect sizes are small.
Figure 4: Entropy distributions by topic and difficulty level visualized using boxen plots with swarm overlays. Difficulty level 3 datasets consistently show higher entropy and wider distributions, reflecting greater model uncertainty.
Figure 5: Knowledge-graph traversal from Hafez to Shiraz , 7th century , Iran , and >90 million , generating MCQ templates of increasing difficulty. The purple path denotes a 1-hop (Level 1) question.
Generating multiple-choice questions (MCQs) with difficulty estimation remains challenging in automated MCQ-generation systems used in adaptive, AI-assisted education. This study proposes a novel methodology for generating MCQs with difficulty estimation from the input documents by utilizing knowledge graphs (KGs) and large language models (LLMs). Our approach uses an LLM to construct a KG from input documents, from which MCQs are then systematically generated. Each MCQ is generated by selecting a node from the KG as the key, sampling a related triple or quintuple -- optionally augmented with an extra triple -- and prompting an LLM to generate a corresponding stem from these graph components. Distractors are then selected from the KG. For each MCQ, nine difficulty signals are computed and combined into a unified difficulty score using a data-driven approach. Experimental results demonstrate that our method generates high-quality MCQs whose difficulty estimation is interpretable and aligns with human perceptions. Our approach improves automated MCQ generation by integrating structured knowledge representations with LLMs and a data-driven difficulty estimation model.
Mehmet Can Şakiroğlu, H. Altay Güvenir, Kamer Kaya
Computer Engineering Department, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey · Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, Sabanci University · VERIM, Center of Excellence in Data Analytics, Sabanci University
This paper presents a principled and scalable framework for systematically generating complex Question Answering (QA) data. In the core of this framework is a graphlet-anchored generation process, where small subgraphs from a Knowledge Graph (KG) are used in a structured prompt to control the complexity and ensure the factual grounding of questions generated by Large Language Models. The first instantiation of this framework is BioGraphletQA, a new biomedical KGQA dataset of 119,856 QA pairs. Each entry is grounded in a graphlet of up to five nodes from the OREGANO KG, with most of the pairs being enriched with relevant document snippets from PubMed. We start by demonstrating the framework's value and the dataset's quality through evaluation by a domain expert on 106 QA pairs, confirming the high scientific validity and complexity of the generated data. Secondly, we establish its practical utility by showing that augmenting downstream benchmarks with our data improves accuracy on PubMedQA from 49.2% to 68.5% in a low-resource setting, and on MedQA from a 41.4% baseline to 44.8% in a full-resource setting. Our framework provides a robust and generalizable solution for creating critical resources to advance complex QA tasks, including MCQA and KGQA. All resources supporting this work, including the dataset (https://zenodo.org/records/17381119) and framework code (https://github.com/ieeta-pt/BioGraphletQA), are publicly available to facilitate use, reproducibility and extension.
Richard A. A. Jonker, Bárbara Maria Ribeiro de Abreu Martins, Sérgio Matos
IEETA, DETI, LASI, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal · USF Atlântico Norte, Portugal
Large language models (LLMs) suffer from a long-tail deficit: culturally specific facts, particularly those concerning underrepresented regions such as Latin America, appear too rarely in pretraining corpora to be reliably memorized. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) addresses this by grounding generation in external text, but structured alternatives such as Knowledge Graphs (KGs) offer tighter control over what enters the context, along with potential gains in explainability and updatability. We benchmark Graph-RAG against standard RAG on LatamQA, a culturally grounded multiple-choice dataset spanning eight thematic categories. The graphs are built end-to-end from Wikipedia articles with KGGen, a recent open-domain extractor, without manual curation in our main setting. G-Retriever is competitive with RAG and reduces the error of the base LLM by 72% with a standard KG and 78% with a benchmark-aware variant, the gap to RAG narrowing further as the graph is oriented toward task-relevant content. The trained projection transfers zero-shot to Portuguese without target-language fine-tuning, indicating multilingual reach.
Pablo Poulenard, Yannis Karmim, Valentin Barrière
DCC, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile · École Polytechnique, Palaiseau, France · Inria, Almanach, Paris, France +2