cs.SEJun 29, 2026

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

Authors: Robson Alves Vilar, Emanuel Dantas Filho, Ademar França de Sousa Neto, Mirko Perkusich, Danyllo Wagner Albuquerque, João Paiva, Kyller Gorgônio, Angelo Perkusich

Organizations: VIRTUS Research, Development and Innovation Center, Federal University of Campina Grande, Campina Grande, PB, Brazil

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

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.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jun 29, 2026cs.SE

Prompting GPT-5 on Scrum Certification Questions: An Empirical Accuracy Study

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in Agile Software Development for documentation, coaching, and training. As practitioners adopt these tools to prepare for certifications such as Professional Scrum Master (PSM), a key question is whether LLMs can reliably reason about Scrum, a framework with normative, well-defined rules described in the Scrum Guide (2020). This paper examines how different prompt techniques affect the factual accuracy of LLM responses to Scrum certification-style questions. A dataset of 993 validated PSM-aligned questions was answered by GPT-5 using three techniques: zero-shot, chain-of-thought, and with-source citation. All prompts achieved certification-level accuracy above 85%, with the citation-based variant performing best (89.1%) and yielding the lowest error rate. Correct answers concentrated in well-defined topics, such as \emph{Definition of Done}, Events, and Product Backlog Management, and in single-answer multiple-choice items, while multi-select questions and more interpretive areas, such as Scrum Team and Product Value, were less stable. Among questions where at least one prompt failed (16.2%), errors clustered into misalignment with the Scrum Guide (28%), content outside its scope (34%), and outdated or biased interpretations (38%). Overall, prompt techniques produced modest but consistent improvements, particularly in reducing misinterpretation and version drift, supporting more reliable use of LLMs in Agile learning and certification preparation.
Mirko Perkusich, Danyllo Albuquerque, João Paiva +6
Large Language Model ResponsesEmpirical Study
AskPDF
Jun 5, 2026cs.CL

SLMJury: Can Small Language Models Judge as Well as Large Ones?

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as judges for evaluating model outputs, but their high cost, latency, and opacity limit scalability. We introduce SLMJury, a framework for evaluating small language models (SLMs) as judges across two paradigms: closed-ended binary correctness and open-ended quality scoring. We benchmark 16 SLM judges (0.6B-14B parameters) from four model families across ten benchmarks: eight closed-ended tasks spanning mathematical, scientific, and general reasoning (N=64,824 judgments per configuration), plus SummEval and MT-Bench for summarization and conversational scoring. We formalize judging as a budget-conditioned function and study five dimensions. Four findings emerge. (1) The overthinking effect is domain-dependent: for most judges quick 10-token verdicts match or beat extended reasoning on mathematical judging (by 2-7% where they help), while reasoning wins on general tasks by up to 23%. (2) Domain generalization separates model families, with math-to-general accuracy gaps ranging from under 10% to nearly 40%. (3) Closed-ended and open-ended judging draw on different capabilities: the best binary judge (Phi-4) drops to rank 9 on MT-Bench, while reasoning-trained models invert this ordering. (4) Under the Reflect-Critique-Refine (RCR) debate protocol, multi-agent debate degrades accuracy across all tested configurations, whereas the top judges resist six adversarial personas with <=0.55% variance. Reliable automated evaluation does not require large proprietary models, yet no single SLM dominates. The leaderboard is available at https://anishh15.github.io/SLMJury/, and our framework code and pip package are publicly available at https://github.com/anishh15/SLMJury and https://pypi.org/project/slmjury/.
Anish Laddha, Nitesh Pradhan, Gaurav Srivastava
Large Language Model JudgesSmall Language ModelsRaw Judge Outputs
AskPDF
Apr 30, 2026cs.CL

Estimating LLM Grading Ability and Response Difficulty in Automatic Short Answer Grading via Item Response Theory

Automated short answer grading (ASAG) with large language models (LLMs) is commonly evaluated with aggregate metrics such as macro-F1 and Cohen's kappa. However, these metrics provide limited insight into how grading performance varies across student responses of differing grading difficulty. We introduce an evaluation framework for LLM-based ASAG based on item response theory (IRT), which models grading correctness as a function of latent grader ability and response grading difficulty. This formulation enables response-level analysis of where LLM graders succeed or fail and reveals robustness differences that are not visible from aggregate scores alone. We apply the framework to 17 open-weight LLMs on the SciEntsBank and Beetle benchmarks. The results show that even models with similar overall performance differ substantially in how sharply their grading accuracy declines as response difficulty increases. In addition, confusion patterns show that errors on difficult responses concentrate disproportionately on the \texttt{partially_correct_incomplete} label, indicating a tendency toward intermediate-label collapse under ambiguity. To characterize difficult responses, we further analyze semantic and linguistic correlates of estimated difficulty. Across both datasets, higher difficulty is associated with weaker semantic alignment to the reference answer, stronger contradiction signals, and greater semantic isolation in embedding space. Overall, these results show that item response theory offers a useful framework for evaluating LLM-based ASAG beyond aggregate performance measures.
Longwei Cong, Sonja Hahn, Sebastian Gombert +3
GradingItem Response TheoryGeo-Contextual Alignment
AskPDF