比较GPT-5 mini、Gemini 3 Flash和DeepSeek Chat在Scrum认证题上的准确率与错误模式

Comparing Large Language Models on Scrum Certification-Style Questions: Accuracy, Stability, and Error Patterns

精选理由

想了解GPT-5 mini、Gemini 3 Flash、DeepSeek Chat谁更适合Scrum考试?这篇论文用993道真题实测了准确率和稳定性,还分析了典型错误原因。

AI 摘要

一项研究评估了GPT-5 mini、Gemini 3 Flash和DeepSeek Chat 3.2在993道PSM I风格Scrum认证题上的表现,使用零样本、链式思考和源接地三种提示策略。Gemini 3 Flash准确率最高,GPT-5 mini次之,DeepSeek Chat 3.2最低。模型在单选题上表现最好,但在多选题和判断题上错误更多。定性分析发现错误系统性源于过度泛化、限制性措辞和复合干扰项。

原文 · arXiv: DeepSeek

Comparing Large Language Models on Scrum Certification-Style Questions: Accuracy, Stability, and Error Patterns

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in exam- and certification-style question answering tasks, where their ability to retrieve, interpret, and apply domain-specific knowledge can be systematically assessed. In Software Engineering, such settings are particularly relevant when questions depend on strict adherence to normative definitions, roles, artifacts, and rules. This paper evaluates the performance of three contemporary LLMs, \textit{GPT-5 mini}, \textit{Gemini 3 Flash}, and \textit{DeepSeek Chat 3.2}, in answering 993 Scrum certification-style questions aligned with the Professional Scrum Master I (PSM I) assessment format. We evaluated the models under three prompting strategies (\textit{zero-shot}, \textit{chain-of-thought}, and \textit{source-grounded}), with repeated executions to assess intra-model stability. We also analyzed performance across Scrum topics and question formats, complemented by a qualitative analysis of recurring error patterns in incorrect answers. Results revealed clear differences among models, with Gemini 3 Flash achieving the highest accuracy, followed by GPT-5 mini and DeepSeek Chat 3.2, while intra-model variability remained low across all conditions. By question format, the models achieved the highest accuracy on single-answer multiple-choice items, whereas multi-select and True/False questions were more error-prone. By topic, performance was more consistent in normatively explicit areas such as Artifacts, Empiricism, and Product Value, but more fragile in Scrum Values, Self-Managing Teams, and Stakeholders \& Customers. The qualitative analysis showed that errors were systematic rather than random, involving overgeneralization, restrictive wording, compound distractors, and conflicts between common market interpretations and strict Scrum definitions.