QuAD: Quantitative Assessment via Distribution-Alignment for Qualitative Data Quality Enabled by a Content-Aware Multi-Agent System
Organizations: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · Shanghai Jiao Tong University · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou)
Abstract
Assessing whether qualitative responses collected from semi-structured questions are ready for a particular analysis goal is a persistent challenge. Manual qualitative analysis is interpretive and labor-intensive, while existing automated methods often lack a dataset-level perspective for deciding whether a response set supports a researcher-selected analytical lens. We introduce QuAD, a framework for quantitative pre-analysis assessment of qualitative response datasets. QuAD compares a reconstructed intrinsic cluster distribution reconstructed from responses with an extrinsic, researcher-defined analytical lens derived from metadata. QuAD is structured into a four-quadrant assessment whose metrics are read jointly, from lens-level relations to within-cluster variation, to provide fitness-for-purpose signals for revealing general patterns and unique insights. Because this assessment relies on lens-conditioned inter-response dissimilarity, we propose a content-aware multi-agent system with two-stage instruction generation and adaptive anchors to improve scoring consistency. We validate QuAD through controlled experiments on synthetic data, including robustness and baseline comparisons, and a real-world social survey case study. The case study shows how QuAD quantitatively assesses whether a selected analysis axis is promising and also surfaces representative or unusual responses for human interpretation.
Figures & tables
| Small-Scale (Pairwise) | Large-Scale (Scalar Projection) | |||||||
| Baseline | Ours | Baseline | Ours | |||||
| Spear. | Pears. | Spear. | Pears. | Spear. | Pears. | Spear. | Pears. | |
| Qwen_turbo | -0.083 | -0.035 | 0.708 | 0.681 | 0.687 | 0.713 | 0.747 | 0.775 |
| Qwen_plus | 0.228 | 0.292 | 0.725 | 0.718 | 0.735 | 0.753 | 0.719 | 0.741 |
| Qwen_max | -0.036 | -0.013 | 0.725 | 0.728 | 0.705 | 0.726 | 0.789 | 0.816 |
| GLM | 0.599 | 0.621 | 0.830 | 0.836 | 0.731 | 0.747 | 0.797 | 0.819 |
Appendix figures & tables24 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Full | No Example | Fixed Example | No Novelty Check | No Pruning | Heuristic Quality | |||||||
| Model | Spear. | Pears. | Spear. | Pears. | Spear. | Pears. | Spear. | Pears. | Spear. | Pears. | Spear. | Pears. |
| Small-scale (pairwise) setting | ||||||||||||
| Qwen_turbo | 0.708 | 0.681 | 0.644 | 0.656 | 0.659 | 0.663 | 0.604 | 0.625 | 0.620 | 0.604 | 0.606 | 0.640 |
| Qwen_plus | 0.725 | 0.718 | 0.674 | 0.659 | 0.760 | 0.757 | 0.700 | 0.683 | 0.652 | 0.667 | 0.643 | 0.636 |
| Qwen_max | 0.725 | 0.728 | 0.633 | 0.621 | 0.672 | 0.663 | 0.683 | 0.695 | 0.691 | 0.697 | 0.701 | 0.709 |
| GLM | 0.830 | 0.836 | 0.770 | 0.765 | 0.822 | 0.829 | 0.826 | 0.839 | 0.831 | 0.842 | 0.729 | 0.732 |
| Quantity | Role | How it is determined |
|---|---|---|
| Number of analytical groups | Defined by metadata and research question | |
| Number of response clusters | Set to so each group has one matched cluster | |
| Scale | LLM score range | Fixed by scoring rubric, e.g., |
| Typical dissimilarity unit | Derived from | |
| DC normalization | Derived from scoring scale and group count | |
| Anchor capacity | Set by context-window and cost budget |
| Method | Small Spear. | Small Pears. | Large Spear. | Large Pears. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qwen3-Embed (cosine) | 0.595 | 0.602 | 0.614 | 0.625 |
| Qwen3-Embed (euclid) | 0.595 | 0.593 | 0.614 | 0.619 |
| OpenAI-3-small (cosine) | 0.594 | 0.602 | 0.698 | 0.717 |
| OpenAI-3-small (euclid) | 0.594 | 0.594 | 0.698 | 0.709 |
| Llama-Embed-8B (cosine) | 0.621 | 0.629 | 0.683 | 0.700 |
| Llama-Embed-8B (euclid) | 0.621 | 0.606 | 0.683 | 0.693 |
| Generator | Evaluator | Small Spear. | Small Pears. | Large Spear. | Large Pears. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeepSeek-v4-Flash | Gemini-3.1-Flash-Lite | 0.733 | 0.754 | 0.842 | 0.855 |
| Gemini-3.1-Flash-Lite | DeepSeek-v4-Flash | 0.727 | 0.730 | 0.878 | 0.890 |
| Method | Ens. | ARI | NMI | Purity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K-medoids | No | 0.639 | 0.710 | 0.830 |
| K-medoids | Yes | 0.631 | 0.698 | 0.831 |
| Agglomerative | No | 0.592 | 0.679 | 0.786 |
| Agglomerative | Yes | 0.592 | 0.679 | 0.786 |
| Spectral | No | 0.607 | 0.686 | 0.818 |
| Spectral | Yes | 0.608 | 0.686 | 0.818 |
| Source | Dist. Spear. | GMR | DDR | DC | DP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| qwen-max | 0.80 | ||||
| deepseek-v3 | 0.94 | ||||
| Cross-model | 0.87 | – | – | – | – |
| Pairwise | Scalar projection | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metric | |||||
| Total tokens | 55,108 | 115,345 | 449,765 | 13,391 | 56,727 |
| Input tokens | 46,781 | 98,231 | 384,725 | 11,088 | 47,707 |
| Output tokens | 8,327 | 17,114 | 65,040 | 2,303 | 9,020 |
| Estimated cost (USD) | $0.0057 | $0.0118 | $0.0453 | $0.0015 | $0.0060 |
| Model | Pairwise Spear./Pears. | Scalar Spear./Pears. |
|---|---|---|
| Qwen-turbo | 0.708/0.681 | 0.747/0.775 |
| Qwen-plus | 0.725/0.718 | 0.719/0.741 |
| Qwen-max | 0.725/0.728 | 0.789/0.816 |
| Analysis | Quantity | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Grade–label association ( ) | Cramér’s | 0.130 |
| Same-label pairs ( ) | Mean / median distance | 14.61 / 10.00 |
| Different-label pairs ( ) | Mean / median distance | 30.38 / 30.00 |
| Pair-distance contrast | Mean gap | 15.77 |
| Method | Mismatch AUC | Top-3 pur. | Top-5 pur. | Fine-code AUC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Random | 0.500 | 0.489 | 0.489 | 0.500 |
| TF–IDF | 0.551 | 0.650 | 0.619 | 0.555 |
| Qwen3-Embed (cosine) | 0.604 | 0.748 | 0.733 | 0.587 |
| Direct LLM † | 0.613 | – | – | 0.602 |
| QuAD | 0.749 | 0.742 | 0.694 | 0.629 |
| Lens | GMR | DDR | DC | DP | Reading (Tab. 17 ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grade level | 0.39 | 0.02 | 0.90 | 0.43 | Weak lens; themes cut across groups |
| Eating-habit change | 0.53 | 0.52 | 0.72 | 0.75 | Lens explains response structure |
| 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 1.0 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DDR | 0.52 | 0.39 | 0.28 | 0.13 | 0.07 | 0.02 |
| DP | 0.76 | 0.70 | 0.66 | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.64 |
| KW | 0.45 | 0.27 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 0.01 |
| Measure | Random | Qwen3-Embed | Direct LLM | QuAD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Representative hit rate | 0.66 | 0.80 | 0.63 | 0.81 |
| Unusual hit rate | 0.34 | 0.29 | 0.47 | 0.82 |
| Partition ARI (coarse / fine) | 0.00 / 0.00 | 0.01 / 0.00 | 0.11 / 0.08 | 0.30 / 0.11 |
| Grade level judged “strong” | – | – | 3/3 runs | No (joint profile) |
| Top-3 overlap across reorderings (Jaccard) | – | – | 0.12 | 1.00 § |
| Partition agreement across reorderings (ARI) | – | – | 0.37 | – |
| Standard tests on QuAD scores | DDR (separation) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lens | / | KW | PERM | value | ||||
| Grade level | 122/4 | 0.11 | 0.755 | 0.271 | 0.01 | 0.519 | 0.02 | 0.381 |
| Gender | 122/2 | 0.10 | 0.932 | 0.297 | 0.00 | 0.537 | 0.04 | 0.112 |
| Living situation | 119/3 | 0.17 | 0.701 | 0.706 | 0.00 | 0.781 | 0.00 | 1.000 |
| Current diet | 119/3 | 0.25 | 0.214 | 0.031 | 0.04 | 0.023 | 0.03 | 0.164 |
| Self-rated health | 122/3 | 0.20 | 0.181 | 0.080 | 0.03 | 0.056 | 0.03 | 0.100 |
| Statement | E1 | E2 | E3 | Median | Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Correctness | 4 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 4–7 |
| Interpretability | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6–7 |
| Usefulness for coding | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6–7 |
| Signals | Reading | Next step |
|---|---|---|
| High GMR, DP, DDR | The lens explains response structure | Compare groups; read representative responses first |
| Low GMR, DP, DDR; high DC | The lens weakly explains structure; themes cut across groups | Revise the lens or code cross-group themes; read unusual responses first |
| High GMR, high DC | Groups are recovered with wide internal spread | Code sub-themes within groups |
| ID | Group | Participant ID | Method Order | Task 1 | Task 2 | Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Finance | Participant 1.1 | A B | Q1 (Method A) | Q2 (Method B) | 1h |
| 2 | Finance | Participant 1.2 | A B | Q2 (Method A) | Q3 (Method B) | 1h |
| 3 | Finance | Participant 1.3 | A B | Q3 (Method A) | Q1 (Method B) | 1h |
| 4 | Finance | Participant 1.4 | B A | Q4 (Method B) | Q5 (Method A) | 1h |
| 5 | Finance | Participant 1.5 | B A | Q5 (Method B) | Q4 (Method A) | 1h |
| 6 | HCI | Participant 2.1 | A B | Q6 (Method A) | Q7 (Method B) | 1h |
| Dimension | Baseline Mean | Ours Mean | Mean Difference | t-statistic | p-value | Significant |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3.30 | 6.35 | 3.05 | 6.45 | 0.00001 | Yes |
| 2 | 3.35 | 5.85 | 2.50 | 6.69 | 0.00001 | Yes |
| 3 | 3.00 | 6.10 | 3.10 | 5.66 | 0.00002 | Yes |
| 4 | 2.95 | 6.45 | 3.50 | 8.46 | 0.00001 | Yes |
| 5 | 2.85 | 6.35 | 3.50 | 8.74 | 0.00001 | Yes |
| 6 | 2.90 | 6.00 | 3.10 | 8.24 | 0.00001 | Yes |
| P ID | G | Age | Edu | Field | Prof. | Exp. | P/C/S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.1 | 1 | 23 | 2 | Finance Data Analysis | 4 | 3 | 4/4/4 |
| 1.2 | 1 | 24 | 3 | Economics | 4 | 7 | 3/4/4 |
| 1.3 | 1 | 23 | 1 | Finance | 3 | 4 | 2/4/5 |
| 1.4 | 2 | 22 | 2 | Finance | 5 | 2 | 5/5/5 |
| 1.5 | 2 | 23 | 2 | Finance | 4 | 4 | 3/4/5 |
| 2.1 | 1 | 21 | 1 | Computer Science, HCI & VIS | 4 | 3 | 5/5/4 |
Automated Evaluation
Automated evaluation develops metrics, benchmarks, and AI judges to assess model outputs and system behavior at scale.
See all 396 papers