Multiple-choice question answering (MCQA) is standard in NLP, but benchmarks lack rigorous quality control. We present BenchMarker, an education-inspired toolkit using LLM judges to flag three common MCQ flaws: 1) contamination—items appearing exactly online; 2) shortcuts—cues in the choices that enable guessing; and 3) writing errors—structural/grammatical issues based on a 19-rule education rubric. We validate BenchMarker with human annotations, then run the tool to audit 12 benchmarks, revealing: 2) contaminated MCQs tend to inflate accuracy, while writing errors tend to lower it and change rankings beyond random; and 3) prior benchmark repairs address their targeted issues (i.e., lowering accuracy with LLM-written distractors), but inadvertently add new flaws (i.e. implausible distractors, many correct answers). Overall, flaws in MCQs degrade NLP evaluation, but education research offers a path forward. We release BenchMarker to bridge the fields and improve MCQA benchmark design.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-Aided Language Models (PAL) represent two distinct reasoning methods, each with its own strengths. CoT employs natural language, offering flexibility and interpretability, while PAL utilizes programming language, yielding more structured and rigorous logic. We introduce a model selection method to combine the best of both worlds by employing a large language model (LLM) to dynamically select between them. Our theoretical analysis underscores the feasibility of this method, which is further corroborated by empirical results. Our proposed method demonstrates significant performance improvements across eight reasoning datasets with Codex, ChatGPT, and GPT-4. Additionally, our method is complementary to self-consistency; when integrated, it can further enhance performance while significantly reducing computation costs. Moreover, we achieve new state-of-the-art results on GSM8K and SVAMP, with respective accuracies of 96.8% and 93.7%.