In education, high-quality exams must cover broad specifications across diverse difficulty levels during the assembly and calibration of test items to effectively measure examinees’ competence. However, balancing the trade-off of selecting relevant test items while fulfilling exam specifications without bias is challenging, particularly when manual item selection and exam assembly rely on a pre-validated item base. To address this limitation, we propose a new mixed-integer programming re-ranking approach to improve relevance, while mitigating bias on an industry-grade exam assembly platform. We evaluate our approach by comparing it against nine bias mitigation re-ranking methods in 225 experiments on a real-world benchmark data set from vocational education services. Experimental results demonstrate a 17% relevance improvement with a 9% bias reduction when integrating sequential optimization techniques with improved contextual relevance augmentation and scoring using a large language model. Our approach bridges information retrieval and exam assembly, enhancing the human-in-the-loop exam assembly process while promoting unbiased exam design

Selecting and assembling test items from a validated item database into comprehensive exam forms is an under-researched but significant challenge in education. Search and retrieval methods provide a robust framework to assist educators when filtering and assembling relevant test items. In this work, we present EdTec-QBuilder, a semantic search tool developed to assist vocational educators in assembling exam forms. To implement EdTec-QBuilder’s core search functionality, we evaluated eight retrieval strategies and twenty-five popular pre-trained sentence similarity models. Our evaluation revealed that employing cross-encoders to re-rank an initial list of relevant items is best for assisting vocational trainers in assembling examination forms. Beyond topic-based exam assembly, EdTec-QBuilder aims to provide a crowdsourcing infrastructure enabling manual exam assembly data collection, which is critical for future research and development in assisted and automatic exam assembly models.

Most research on natural language processing treats bias as an absolute concept: Based on a (probably complex) algorithmic analysis, a sentence, an article, or a text is classified as biased or not. Given the fact that for humans the question of whether a text is biased can be difficult to answer or is answered contradictory, we ask whether an “absolute bias classification” is a promising goal at all. We see the problem not in the complexity of interpreting language phenomena but in the diversity of sociocultural backgrounds of the readers, which cannot be handled uniformly: To decide whether a text has crossed the proverbial line between non-biased and biased is subjective. By asking “Is text X more [less, equally] biased than text Y?” we propose to analyze a simpler problem, which, by its construction, is rather independent of standpoints, views, or sociocultural aspects. In such a model, bias becomes a preference relation that induces a partial ordering from least biased to most biased texts without requiring a decision on where to draw the line. A prerequisite for this kind of bias model is the ability of humans to perceive relative bias differences in the first place. In our research, we selected a specific type of bias in argumentation, the stance bias, and designed a crowdsourcing study showing that differences in stance bias are perceptible when (light) support is provided through training or visual aid.