Predicting the difficulty of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) is important for effective assessment, yet current methods typically assume a unimodal student ability distribution, overlooking the heterogeneous nature of student misconceptions. We propose a persona-driven framework that replaces theoretical ability sampling with data-driven cognitive profiling. Using student interactions from the EEDI dataset, we identify behavioral personas via latent class analysis (LCA), then condition a large language model (LLM) to simulate response distributions for each persona. These signals are aggregated with topic context and fed into a Ridge Regression model to predict the item response theory (IRT) difficulty parameter. With five-fold cross-validation, our method improves over a recent baseline (MSE: 0.367 to 0.274; R2: 0.525 to 0.686). The discovered personas are interpretable and offer insights into why items are difficult, with potential applications to diagnostic assessment design.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The Proposed Pipeline. LCA discovers 5 learner personas from student response data (Step 1). An LLM simulates per-persona response distributions (Step 2), which are aggregated into features (Step 3) and used to predict IRT difficulty via Ridge Regression (Step 4). Ground truth is estimated independently via 2PL-IRT (Step 0).
Figure 2: Model selection for psychometric profiling. Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) for Latent Class models with varying numbers of latent classes. BIC reaches a global minimum at k=5 , indicating the optimal number of learner profiles.
Predicting human item difficulty is central to educational assessment, where reliable estimates support fairness and effective test construction. Existing methods often depend on costly human calibration or item-level textual representations, providing limited evidence about the cognitive processes that make items difficult. We argue that difficulty should be viewed not only as a property of item text, but also as an observable consequence of the problem-solving burden an item induces. Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) offer scalable process evidence through reasoning traces, but such evidence must be structured to support interpretable modeling. To this end, we introduce Epi2Diff (Episode to Difficulty), a framework that maps LRM reasoning traces into cognitively grounded episode sequences. These episodes group trace segments into functional problem-solving states, enabling difficulty to be modeled through reasoning scale, effort allocation, and state transitions. Epi2Diff extracts compact episode-dynamic features and combines them with semantic item representations for human difficulty prediction. Experiments on four real-world human difficulty datasets show that Epi2Diff consistently outperforms strong baselines, including fine-tuned small language models, LLM in-context learning, and supervised LLM adaptation. On SAT-derived classification benchmarks, Epi2Diff achieves an 8.1% average relative gain over supervised LLM fine-tuning baselines. Further analyses show that harder items induce more effortful, iterative, and implementation-centered episode dynamics, rather than merely longer responses. These results demonstrate that cognitive episodes in LRM reasoning traces provide a predictive and interpretable process representation for human item difficulty, offering a new lens for educational measurement with reasoning models.
Chenguang Wang, Ming Li, Xinyue Zeng +4
1Virginia Tech · University of Maryland · 3MBZUAI +1
We present results from reconstructing multiple-choice model (MCM) and three-parameter logistic (3PL) model curves using a fine-tuned multimodal large language model (LLM) based on Qwen3.5. The model is prompted and fine-tuned to replicate choice probabilities across a large training corpus of multiple-choice items containing both image and text stimuli, conditioned on a labeled set of student ability levels. By learning to reproduce the systematic error patterns of students across a discrete range of abilities, the LLM implicitly captures the underlying response probabilities encoded in the 3PL and MCM curves. This allows us to accurately approximate item difficulty on a held-out test set directly from the model's predicted option probabilities.
Item discrimination is a fundamental psychometric property of educational assessment, which measures whether an item meaningfully distinguishes students with higher proficiency from students with lower proficiency. While various existing works have explored whether large language models (LLMs) can estimate item difficulty, it remains unclear whether they can capture item discrimination. In this work, we evaluate 42 proprietary and open-weight LLMs in zero-shot settings using two complementary approaches: direct discrimination prediction, where models explicitly estimate an item's discrimination value from its content, and response-based Classical Test Theory (CTT) calibration, where LLM answers are treated as synthetic student responses to compute discrimination scores. Our results show that direct prediction yields weak alignment with human-calibrated discrimination: the best-performing model reaches only a Spearman correlation of 0.152. Response-based CTT calibration provides a stronger but still limited signal, with the all-persona synthetic respondent pool reaching a Spearman correlation of 0.241. These findings highlight item discrimination as an open challenge for LLM-based psychometric evaluation: current LLMs contain non-random discrimination-relevant signal, but they do not yet reliably capture how assessment items distinguish human students.