Multi-Swarm Optimization for Extracting Multiple-Choice Tests From Question Banks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it