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

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.00048v1
• Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2026 23:37:56 GMT
• Title: Comparing Large Language Models on Scrum Certification-Style Questions: Accuracy, Stability, and Error Patterns
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in exam- and certification-style question answering tasks.<n>This paper evaluates the performance of three contemporary LLMs, textitGPT-5 mini, textitGemini 3 Flash, and textitDeepSeek Chat 3.2, in answering 993 Scrum certification-style questions.
• Score: 0.19674381684480705
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: 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.

Related papers

• A Systematic Evaluation of Cross-Lingual Consistency Enhancement Methods in Multilingual Language Models [50.27606276000142]
  We present a unified evaluation of representative CLC-enhancement methods for question answering, spanning inference-time interventions and post-training approaches.<n>Results show that post-training methods are generally more reliable, with direct distribution alignment consistently improving CLC across all model-dataset combinations.<n>We investigate whether CLC enhancement hurts models' ability to respond differently *when needed*, that is, when asked culture-dependent questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-03T19:18:44Z)
• Prompting GPT-5 on Scrum Certification Questions: An Empirical Accuracy Study [0.6531122829756467]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in Agile Software Development for documentation, coaching, and training.<n>This paper examines how different prompt techniques affect the factual accuracy of LLM responses to Scrum certification-style questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-29T23:55:14Z)
• DepthCharge: A Domain-Agnostic Framework for Measuring Depth-Dependent Knowledge in Large Language Models [51.56484100374058]
  Large Language Models appear competent when answering general questions but often fail when pushed into domain-specific details.<n>We present DepthCharge, a domain-agnostic framework that measures knowledge depth through three innovations.<n> adaptive probing that generates follow-up questions based on concepts the model actually mentions, on-demand fact verification from authoritative sources, and survival statistics with constant sample sizes at every depth level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T20:49:11Z)
• Automated Benchmark Generation from Domain Guidelines Informed by Bloom's Taxonomy [28.293009223912602]
  Open-ended question answering (QA) evaluates a model's ability to perform contextualized reasoning beyond factual recall.<n>This challenge is especially acute in practice-based domains, where knowledge is procedural and grounded in professional judgment.<n>We introduce a framework for automated benchmark generation from expert-authored guidelines informed by Bloom's taxonomy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-28T05:01:11Z)
• Chain-of-thought Reviewing and Correction for Time Series Question Answering [22.889720488678076]
  We propose T3LLM, which performs multi-step reasoning with an explicit correction mechanism for time series question answering.<n>Within this framework, the worker generates step-wise chains of thought (CoT) under structured prompts, while the reviewer inspects the reasoning, identifies erroneous steps, and provides corrective comments.<n>Experiments on multiple real-world TSQA benchmarks demonstrate that T3LLM achieves state-of-the-art performance over strong LLM-based baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-27T15:54:18Z)
• PRISMM-Bench: A Benchmark of Peer-Review Grounded Multimodal Inconsistencies [16.537126902822127]
  We introduce PRISMM-Bench, the first benchmark grounded in real reviewer-flagged inconsistencies in scientific papers.<n>We design three tasks, namely inconsistency identification, remedy and pair matching, which assess a model's capacity to detect, correct, and reason over inconsistencies.<n>We benchmark 21 leading LMMs, including large openweight models (GLM-4.5V 106B, InternVL3 78B) and proprietary models (Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-5 with high reasoning)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-18T13:46:26Z)
• Curse of Knowledge: When Complex Evaluation Context Benefits yet Biases LLM Judges [72.3356133063925]
  The paradigm of large language models (LLMs) as judges has emerged as a scalable solution, yet prior work primarily focuses on simple settings.<n>Our in-depth analysis offers crucial insights for improving the accuracy and verifiability of evaluation signals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-03T15:48:33Z)
• CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward [50.97588334916863]
  We develop CompassVerifier, an accurate and robust lightweight verifier model for evaluation and outcome reward.<n>It demonstrates multi-domain competency spanning math, knowledge, and diverse reasoning tasks, with the capability to process various answer types.<n>We introduce VerifierBench benchmark comprising model outputs collected from multiple data sources, augmented through manual analysis of metaerror patterns to enhance CompassVerifier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T17:55:24Z)
• A Controllable Examination for Long-Context Language Models [62.845852724511964]
  This study introduces $textbfLongBioBench, a benchmark for evaluating long-context language models.<n>We show that most models still exhibit deficiencies in semantic understanding and elementary reasoning over retrieved results.<n>Our further analysis indicates some design choices employed by existing synthetic benchmarks, such as contextual non-coherence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T14:23:06Z)
• ProcessBench: Identifying Process Errors in Mathematical Reasoning [62.80402845414901]
  We introduce ProcessBench for measuring the ability to identify erroneous steps in mathematical reasoning.<n>ProcessBench consists of 3,400 test cases, primarily focused on competition- and Olympiad-level math problems.<n>We conduct extensive evaluation on ProcessBench, involving two types of models: process reward models (PRMs) and critic models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-09T15:11:40Z)
• Generative Judge for Evaluating Alignment [84.09815387884753]
  We propose a generative judge with 13B parameters, Auto-J, designed to address these challenges. Our model is trained on user queries and LLM-generated responses under massive real-world scenarios. Experimentally, Auto-J outperforms a series of strong competitors, including both open-source and closed-source models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T07:27:15Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.