# GAOKAO-Eval: Does high scores truly reflect strong capabilities in LLMs?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.10056 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.10056/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 13 Dec 2024.

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [We-Math 2.0: A Versatile MathBook System for Incentivizing Visual Mathematical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.10433/) (2025)
- [Code-driven Number Sequence Calculation: Enhancing the inductive Reasoning Abilities of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.14620/) (2025)
- [OmniEdu: Open Foundation Models for Learning and Teaching](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.23088/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) are commonly evaluated using human-crafted benchmarks, under the premise that higher scores implicitly reflect stronger human-like performance. However, there is growing concern that LLMs may ``game" these benchmarks due to data leakage, achieving high scores while struggling with tasks simple for humans. To substantively address the problem, we create GAOKAO-Eval, a comprehensive benchmark based on China's National College Entrance Examination (Gaokao), and conduct ``closed-book" evaluations for representative models released prior to Gaokao. Contrary to prevailing consensus, even after addressing data leakage and comprehensiveness, GAOKAO-Eval reveals that high scores still fail to truly reflect human-aligned capabilities. To better understand this mismatch, We introduce the Rasch model from cognitive psychology to analyze LLM scoring patterns and identify two key discrepancies: 1) anomalous consistent performance across various question difficulties, and 2) high variance in performance on questions of similar difficulty. In addition, We identified inconsistent grading of LLM-generated answers among teachers and recurring mistake patterns. we find that the phenomenons are well-grounded in the motivations behind OpenAI o1, and o1's reasoning-as-difficulties can mitigate the mismatch. These results show that GAOKAO-Eval can reveal limitations in LLM capabilities not captured by current benchmarks and highlight the need for more LLM-aligned difficulty analysis.