Chinese idioms (成语, Chengyu) are concise four-character expressions steeped in history and culture, whose literal translations often fail to capture their full meaning. This complexity makes them challenging for language models to interpret and use correctly. Existing benchmarks focus on narrow tasks—multiple-choice cloze tests, isolated translation, or simple paraphrasing. We introduce CHENGYU-BENCH, a comprehensive benchmark featuring three tasks: (1) Evaluative Connotation, classifying idioms as positive or negative; (2) Appropriateness, detecting incorrect idiom usage in context; and (3) Open Cloze, filling blanks in longer passages without options. CHENGYU-BENCH comprises 2,937 human-verified examples covering 1,765 common idioms sourced from diverse corpora. We evaluate leading LLMs and find they achieve over 95% accuracy on Evaluative Connotation, but only ~85% on Appropriateness and ~40% top-1 accuracy in Open Cloze. Error analysis reveals that most mistakes arise from fundamental misunderstandings of idiom meanings. CHENGYU-BENCH demonstrates that while LLMs can reliably gauge idiom sentiment, they still struggle to grasp the cultural and contextual nuances essential for proper usage. The benchmark and code will be released upon paper acceptance.

Quizzes play a crucial role in education by reinforcing students’ understanding of key concepts and encouraging self-directed exploration. However, compiling high-quality quizzes can be challenging and require deep expertise and insight into specific subject matter. Although LLMs have greatly enhanced the efficiency of quiz generation, concerns remain regarding the quality of these AI-generated quizzes and their educational impact on students. To address these issues, we introduce ConQuer, a concept-based quiz generation framework that leverages external knowledge sources. We employ comprehensive evaluation dimensions to assess the quality of the generated quizzes, using LLMs as judges. Our experiment results demonstrate a 4.8% improvement in evaluation scores and a 77.52% win rate in pairwise comparisons against baseline quiz sets. Ablation studies further underscore the effectiveness of each component in our framework.