aiqbench analysis
This research indicates that current large language models struggle to accurately predict item difficulty, often underestimating complexity as model capabilities increase due to insufficient semantic differentiation in embeddings. The findings suggest caution when relying on LLMs for automated test generation where precise difficulty calibration is critical, highlighting a gap between general linguistic proficiency and specific assessment metrics.
Can LLMs Really Understand Item Difficulty Levels? Implications for Automated Item Generation Using LLMs
arXiv:2607.28634v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The estimation of item difficulty plays a key role in both formative assessment and large-scale high-stakes summative assessments. This study explores how large language models (LLMs) perform in predicting item difficulty levels using items from a large-scale Reading and Writing test. The study investigated various prompting strategies and parameter settings across multiple LLMs. LLM performance was compared with encoder-only language models and feature-based supervised machine learning models. Zero-shot GPT-4.1 with a temperature of 0 yielded the highest item difficulty level prediction accuracy, with a quadratic weighted kappa (QWK) of 0.578. However, LLMs' prediction accuracy was lower than that of ConvBERT (QWK = 0.625), which outperformed the best feature-based supervised machine learning model. Further analysis showed that all LLMs struggled to label hard items; in particular, the current advanced GPT-5.4 tended to underestimate item difficulty levels. Dimension reduction of embeddings showed that item embeddings from different difficulty levels were mixed together, indicating that semantic information from items alone is likely insufficient for item difficulty level prediction. The findings suggest that if LLMs cannot understand item difficulty levels as evidenced by empirical data and tend to treat most items as easy when their own capabilities increase, caution should be exercised when using LLMs to generate items with targeted difficulty levels.
Title:Can LLMs Really Understand Item Difficulty Levels? Implications for Automated Item Generation Using LLMs
Abstract:The estimation of item difficulty plays a key role in both formative assessment and large-scale high-stakes summative assessments. This study explores how large language models (LLMs) perform in predicting item difficulty levels using items from a large-scale Reading and Writing test. The study investigated various prompting strategies and parameter settings across multiple LLMs. LLM performance was compared with encoder-only language models and feature-based supervised machine learning models. Zero-shot GPT-4.1 with a temperature of 0 yielded the highest item difficulty level prediction accuracy, with a quadratic weighted kappa (QWK) of 0.578. However, LLMs' prediction accuracy was lower than that of ConvBERT (QWK = 0.625), which outperformed the best feature-based supervised machine learning model. Further analysis showed that all LLMs struggled to label hard items; in particular, the current advanced GPT-5.4 tended to underestimate item difficulty levels. Dimension reduction of embeddings showed that item embeddings from different difficulty levels were mixed together, indicating that semantic information from items alone is likely insufficient for item difficulty level prediction. The findings suggest that if LLMs cannot understand item difficulty levels as evidenced by empirical data and tend to treat most items as easy when their own capabilities increase, caution should be exercised when using LLMs to generate items with targeted difficulty levels.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2607.28634 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2607.28634v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.28634 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 318 words
Related coverage
What's Continual Learning, and Why Might We Expect To See It In Advanced LLM Agents?
LessWrong · Jun 12, 2026
If This Were a Test, How Much Would It Cost?
LessWrong · Jun 16, 2026
Fable and Mythos: Model Welfare
LessWrong · Jun 16, 2026

The standard for agents you can trust: Lessons from the federal front lines
Snorkel AI Blog · Jun 5, 2026