Multi-Swarm Optimization for Extracting Multiple-Choice Tests From Question Banks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, a novel method for generating multiple-choice tests is presented, which extracts the required number of tests of the same levels of difficulty in a single attempt and approximates the difficulty level requirement given by users. We propose an approach using parallelism and Pareto optimization for multi-swarm migration in a particle swarm optimization (PSO) algorithm. Multi-PSO is proposed for shortening the computing time. The proposed migration of PSOs increases the diversity of tests and controls the overlap of extracted tests. The experimental results show that the proposed method can generate many tests from question banks satisfying predefined levels of difficulty. Additionally, the developed method is shown to be effective in terms of many criteria when compared with other methods such as manually extracted tests, a simulated annealing algorithm (SA), random methods and PSO-based approaches in terms of the number of successful solutions, accuracy, standard deviation, search speed, and the number of questions overlapping between the exam questions, as well as for changing the search space, changing the number of individuals, changing the number of swarms, and changing the difficulty requirements.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".