Leveraging Large Language Models for Multiple Choice Question Answering
Joshua Robinson, David Wingate
Abstract
While large language models (LLMs) like GPT-3 have achieved impressive results on multiple choice question answering (MCQA) tasks in the zero, one, and few-shot settings, they generally lag behind the MCQA state of the art (SOTA). MCQA tasks have traditionally been presented to LLMs like cloze tasks. An LLM is conditioned on a question (without the associated answer options) and its chosen option is the one assigned the highest probability after normalization (for length, etc.). A more natural prompting approach is to present the question and answer options to the LLM jointly and have it output the symbol (e.g., "A") associated with its chosen answer option. This approach allows the model to explicitly compare answer options, reduces computational costs, and mitigates the effects of tokenization scheme and answer option representations on answer selection. For the natural approach to be effective, the LLM it is used with must be able to associate answer options with the symbols that represent them. The LLM needs what we term multiple choice symbol binding (MCSB) ability. This ability varies greatly by model. We show that a model with high MCSB ability performs much better with the natural approach than with the traditional approach across 20 diverse datasets and largely closes the gap with the SOTA, suggesting that the MCQA ability of LLMs has been previously underestimated.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 086604e1-982d-465c-bc1e-8e5629704fcaCited by top-tier papers62
- Large Language Models Are Not Robust Multiple Choice SelectorsChujie Zheng, Hao Zhou, Fandong Meng, Jie Zhou et al.ICLR 2024 · 424 citations
- Mental-LLM: Leveraging Large Language Models for Mental Health Prediction via Online Text DataXuhai Xu, Bingsheng Yao, Yuanzhe Dong, Saadia Gabriel et al.UbiComp 2024 · 281 citations
- Language Models Meet World Models: Embodied Experiences Enhance Language ModelsJiannan Xiang, Tianhua Tao, Yi Gu, Tianmin Shu et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 180 citations
- Response Length Perception and Sequence Scheduling: An LLM-Empowered LLM Inference PipelineZangwei Zheng, Xiaozhe Ren, Fuzhao Xue, Yang Luo et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 159 citations
- Multi-LLM Debate: Framework, Principals, and InterventionsAndrew Estornell, Yang LiuNeurIPS 2024 · 131 citations
Builds on15
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackLong Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 24,707 citations
- Measuring Massive Multitask Language UnderstandingDan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou et al.ICLR 2021 · 7,905 citations
- WinoGrande: An Adversarial Winograd Schema Challenge at ScaleKeisuke Sakaguchi, Ronan Le Bras, Chandra Bhagavatula, Yejin ChoiAAAI 2020 · 3,037 citations
- PIQA: Reasoning about Physical Commonsense in Natural LanguageYonatan Bisk, Rowan Zellers, Ronan Le Bras, Jianfeng Gao et al.AAAI 2020 · 2,916 citations
Related papers
- Reasoning Models Are Test Exploiters: Rethinking Multiple ChoiceNarun Raman, Taylor Lundy, Kevin Leyton-BrownICML 2026 · 10 citations
- Artifacts or Abduction: How Do LLMs Answer Multiple-Choice Questions Without the Question?Nishant Balepur, Abhilasha Ravichander, Rachel RudingerACL 2024 · 5 citations
- Choices Speak Louder than QuestionsGyeongje Cho, Yeonkyoung So, Jaejin LeeICLR 2026 · 2 citations
- Strengthened Symbol Binding Makes Large Language Models Reliable Multiple-Choice SelectorsMengge Xue, Zhenyu Hu, Liqun Liu, Kuo Liao et al.ACL 2024
- Question Answering as Programming for Solving Time-Sensitive QuestionsXinyu Zhu, Cheng Yang, Bei Chen, Siheng Li et al.EMNLP 2023 · 6 citations
