ChatGPT and Gemini participated in the Korean College Scholastic Ability Test -- Earth Science I
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The rapid development of Generative AI is bringing innovative changes to education and assessment. As the prevalence of students utilizing AI for assignments increases, concerns regarding academic integrity and the validity of assessments are growing. This study utilizes the Earth Science I section of the 2025 Korean College Scholastic Ability Test (CSAT) to deeply analyze the multimodal scientific reasoning capabilities and cognitive limitations of state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs), including GPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and Gemini 2.5 Pro. Three experimental conditions (full-page input, individual item input, and optimized multimodal input) were designed to evaluate model performance across different data structures. Quantitative results indicated that unstructured inputs led to significant performance degradation due to segmentation and Optical Character Recognition (OCR) failures. Even under optimized conditions, models exhibited fundamental reasoning flaws. Qualitative analysis revealed that "Perception Errors" were dominant, highlighting a "Perception-Cognition Gap" where models failed to interpret symbolic meanings in schematic diagrams despite recognizing visual data. Furthermore, models demonstrated a "Calculation-Conceptualization Discrepancy," successfully performing calculations while failing to apply the underlying scientific concepts, and "Process Hallucination," where models skipped visual verification in favor of plausible but unfounded background knowledge. Addressing the challenge of unauthorized AI use in coursework, this study provides actionable cues for designing "AI-resistant questions" that target these specific cognitive vulnerabilities. By exploiting AI's weaknesses, such as the gap between perception and cognition, educators can distinguish genuine student competency from AI-generated responses, thereby ensuring assessment fairness.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Dec 2025.
Builds on
6 of 22 references.
References · 6
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,963
- 2019SuperGLUE: A Stickier Benchmark for General-Purpose Language Understanding Systemscited by 1,729
- 2024From MOOC to MAIC: Reshaping Online Teaching and Learning through LLM-driven Agentscited by 15
- 2024Generative AI for Education (GAIED): Advances, Opportunities, and Challengescited by 13
- 2024Beyond Answers: Large Language Model-Powered Tutoring System in Physics Education for Deep Learning and Precise Understandingcited by 3
- 2024Advancing Transformative Education: Generative AI as a Catalyst for Equity and Innovationcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2023An In-depth Look at Gemini's Language Abilities
- 2023Gemini vs GPT-4V: A Preliminary Comparison and Combination of Vision-Language Models Through Qualitative Cases
- 2025Evaluating Large Language Models on the 2026 Korean CSAT Mathematics Exam: Measuring Mathematical Ability in a Zero-Data-Leakage Setting
- 2025Integrating Universal Generative AI Platforms in Educational Labs to Foster Critical Thinking and Digital Literacy
- 2024An Eye for an AI: Evaluating GPT-4o's Visual Perception Skills and Geometric Reasoning Skills Using Computer Graphics Questions
- 2025Comparative Analysis Based on DeepSeek, ChatGPT, and Google Gemini: Features, Techniques, Performance, Future Prospects
- 2023A Challenger to GPT-4V? Early Explorations of Gemini in Visual Expertise
- 2024Evaluating ChatGPT-4 Vision on Brazil's National Undergraduate Computer Science Exam