Researchers apply Benford's law to physics exams to see if they can do better than chance

Nov 29, 2013 by Bob Yirka report
Researchers apply Benford’s law to physics exams to see if they can do better than chance
The distribution of leading digits in end-of-chapter excercise answers from two popular introductory physics text- books (Knight, Young & Freedman) and an analytical chem- istry textbook (Skoog). The dashed horizontal line indi- cates uniform distribution of first digits. Statistical analysis confirms conformation to Benford’s Law, overlayed as black squares. Credit: arXiv:1311.4787 [physics.data-an]

(Phys.org) —A team of scientists who specialize in multiple-choice test assessment at Brock and Trent University's in Canada has conducted a study to find out if students could use Benford's law to help them pass multiple-choice physics tests. They have posted a paper describing their results on the preprint server arXiv.

Benford's law, named after Frank Benford, a physicist working with probability, says that the numbers 1, 2, and 3 are much more likely to appear at the beginning of multiple digit numbers that are based on real-world measurements of such things as physical constants, the addresses of random people, etc. More specifically, the number 1, the law says, will appear first in a series of digits 30 percent of the time. The number 2 will appear first 18 percent of the time and the number 3 will appear first 13 percent of the time, and so on, with higher numbers appearing less and less often.

This got the team in Canada wondering if students taking a multiple-choice test might be able to do better than random guessing if they followed Benford's law instead—theory suggests that if they used Benford's law to answer all of the questions, they should be able to score at least 51 percent correct—a passing mark. To find out, they created their own 500 question multiple-choice (each with three choices) exam along with a dataset of real answers from a real test. Incorrect answers were represented randomly.

To run the test, the researchers chose the lowest possible number for each answer. In analyzing the results, they found that they could indeed score 51 percent on the test, without any knowledge of underlying physics concepts.

But, there was a catch, when the researchers applied the same science to a real physics , they found they were able to do no better than chance. That was because, they discovered, the wrong answers followed Benford's law as well.

The research team still can't explain why the incorrect answers followed Benford's law, but can report that clever students seeking to apply the law to their multiple choice tests, likely won't fare any better than chance, which would mean they would fail miserably.

Explore further: Limited patient choice next health overhaul issue

More information: Benford's Law: Textbook Exercises and Multiple-choice Testbanks, arXiv:1311.4787 [physics.data-an] arxiv.org/abs/1311.4787

Abstract
Benford's Law describes the finding that the distribution of leading (or leftmost) digits of innumerable datasets follows a well-defined logarithmic trend, rather than an intuitive uniformity. In practice this means that the most common leading digit is 1, with an expected frequency of 30.1%, and the least common is 9, with an expected frequency of 4.6%. The history and development of Benford's Law is inexorably linked to physics, yet there has been a dearth of physics-related Benford datasets reported in the literature. Currently, the most common application of Benford's Law is in detecting number invention and tampering such as found in accounting-, tax-, and voter-fraud. We demonstrate that answers to end-of-chapter exercises in physics and chemistry textbooks conform to Benford's Law. Subsequently, we investigate whether this fact can be used to gain advantage over random guessing in multiple-choice tests, and find that while testbank answers in introductory physics closely conform to Benford's Law, the testbank is nonetheless secure against such a Benford's attack for banal reasons.

Related Stories

Number one rules in nature: study

Feb 17, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Researchers from The Australian National University have used a long-forgotten mathematical rule to reveal that in nature the number one dominates, as well as detect natural events like earthquakes ...

New Pattern Found in Prime Numbers

May 08, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Prime numbers have intrigued curious thinkers for centuries. On one hand, prime numbers seem to be randomly distributed among the natural numbers with no other law than that of chance. But ...

Recommended for you

A new multi-bit 'spin' for MRAM storage

8 hours ago

Interest in magnetic random access memory (MRAM) is escalating, thanks to demand for fast, low-cost, nonvolatile, low-consumption, secure memory devices. MRAM, which relies on manipulating the magnetization ...

New study refines biological evolution model

Jul 21, 2014

Models for the evolution of life are now being developed to try and clarify the long term dynamics of an evolving system of species. Specifically, a recent model proposed by Petri Kärenlampi from the University ...

User comments : 4

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2013
Nothing as useless as a multiple choice test. Especially in the natural science - no matter how you structure it - it fails to test the most important part: whether you have understood the subject AND the implications.

Regurgitating based on a "that looks about right", "I can exclude the other three choices as dumb" or "That seems familiar" is the worst way of deluding yourself into thinking that you have some aptitude in these subjects.
gopher65
not rated yet Nov 29, 2013
Yup, I have repeatedly scored well on multiple choice tests while having only cursory knowledge of the subject matter. They fail miserably at testing students, but are very easy for the teachers compared to, you know, *real* tests.
gopher65
not rated yet Nov 29, 2013
antialias_physorg: I accidentally rated your comment one rather than 5. Sorry:(.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2013
It happens. Don't worry. I'm not here for the ratings.