用高考地理题测试AI,发现其看图推理常出错
ChatGPT and Gemini participated in the Korean College Scholastic Ability Test -- Earth Science I
- 用三种输入方式测试GPT-4o和Gemini的科学推理能力
- 优化输入后仍出现概念理解错误和虚假计算
- 揭示AI在图像理解与逻辑推理间的认知断层
生成式AI的发展正在重塑教育与评估。本研究以2025年韩国大学学力水平考试(CSAT)地球科学I部分为基准,深度分析GPT-4o、Gemini 2.5 Flash和Gemini 2.5 Pro等前沿大语言模型的多模态科学推理能力与认知局限。设计了全页输入、单题输入和优化多模态输入三种实验条件,评估模型在不同数据结构下的表现。量化结果显示,非结构化输入因分段与光学字符识别(OCR)失败导致性能显著下降。即使在优化条件下,模型仍存在根本性推理缺陷。定性分析表明,“感知错误”占主导,暴露出“感知-认知鸿沟”——模型虽能识别视觉数据,却无法理解示意图中的符号意义。此外,模型存在“计算-概念脱节”,可完成计算但无法应用科学原理;以及“过程幻觉”,跳过视觉验证而依赖似是而非的背景知识。针对课程作业中未经授权使用AI的问题,本研究提出针对性设计“抗AI题目”的策略,利用模型的认知弱点,帮助教师区分真实学生能力与AI生成答案,保障评估公平性。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
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.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。