The DOI matches its DataCite record; 118 of the 151 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivity
Open accessAbstract
This paper proposes a framework for quantitatively evaluating interactive LLMs such as ChatGPT using publicly available data sets. We carry out an extensive technical evaluation of ChatGPT using 23 data sets covering 8 different common NLP application tasks. We evaluate the multitask, multilingual and multi-modal aspects of ChatGPT based on these data sets and a newly designed multimodal dataset. We find that ChatGPT outperforms LLMs with zero-shot learning on most tasks and even outperforms fine-tuned models on some tasks. We find that it is better at understanding non-Latin script languages than generating them. It is able to generate multimodal content from textual prompts, via an intermediate code generation step. Moreover, we find that ChatGPT is 63.41% accurate on average in 10 different reasoning categories under logical reasoning, non-textual reasoning, and commonsense reasoning, hence making it an unreliable reasoner. It is, for example, better at deductive than inductive reasoning. ChatGPT suffers from hallucination problems like other LLMs and it generates more extrinsic hallucinations from its parametric memory as it does not have access to an external knowledge base. Finally, the interactive feature of ChatGPT enables human collaboration with the underlying LLM to improve its performance, i.e, 8% ROUGE-1 on summarization and 2% ChrF++ on machine translation, in a multi-turn "prompt engineering" fashion. We also release codebase for evaluation set extraction.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“ChatGPT generally performs poorly on commonsense reasoning tasks, but relatively better than non-text semantic reasoning [6].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Large language models (LLMs), such as Chat-GPT, are prone to generate hallucinations, i.e., content that conflicts with the source or cannot be verified by the factual knowledge.”
From HaluEval: A Large-Scale Hallucination Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as Bang et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“On symbolic reasoning tasks, ChatGPT is mostly worse than GPT-3.5, which may be because ChatGPT is prone to uncertain responses, leading to poor performance [6].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“On symbolic reasoning tasks, ChatGPT is mostly worse than GPT-3.5, which may be because ChatGPT is prone to uncertain responses, leading to poor performance [6].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Fine-tuned models, such as Vícuna and ChatGPT, exhibit exceptional performance with near-perfect scores, surpassing models that lack supervised fine-tuning by a significant margin [5, 6].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The results indicated that these LLMs perform poorly when it came to non-Latin languages and languages with limited resources.”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“LLMs also achieve satisfying performance across several natural language processing tasks, including machine translation [6, 130, 208], text generation [20], and question answering [102, 114].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“LLMs are prone to hallucination (Bang et al., 2023), where they generate plausible but factually incorrect or unverifiable information (Ji et al., 2023; Huang et al., 2025).”
From MedHallu: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Detecting Medical Hallucinations in Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as Bang et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, its proficiency in mathematical reasoning still requires improvement [6, 45, 265].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Specifically, ChatGPT demonstrates comparable zero-shot performance to the text-davinci-002 [6], but performs worse than GPT-3.5 [159].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Meanwhile, ChatGPT also lacks spatial reasoning ability, but exhibits better temporal reasoning.”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Research by Bang et al. [6] underscores that fully fine-tuned models tailored for specific tasks surpass ChatGPT in both task-oriented and knowledge-based dialogue contexts.”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The findings from Bang et al. [6] indicated that ChatGPT performs X → Eng translation well, but it still lacks the ability to perform Eng → X translation.”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In linguistic contexts featuring non-Latin scripts and limited resources, LLMs manifest suboptimal performance [2, 6, 100, 250].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“As the evaluation by Bang et al. (2023) found, ChatGPT is only 63.41% accurate on average in ten different reasoning categories under logical reasoning, non-textual reasoning, and common-sense reasoning, making it an unreliable reasoner.”
From AI and ethics: Investigating the first policy responses of higher education institutions to the challenge of generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as Bang et al. (2023)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, LLMs sometimes suffer from confabulations (or hallucinations), which can result in them making plausible but incorrect statements1,2.”
From Mathematical discoveries from program search with large language models (2024) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“In low-resource learning environments, LLMs exhibit significant advantages over small language models [251], but the ability of ChatGPT to understand low-resource languages is limited [6].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, Bang et al. [6] highlighted that ChatGPT still faces a limitation in translating sentences written in non-Latin script languages with rich linguistic resources.”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“they exhibit noteworthy proficiency in temporal reasoning [6].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“However, like other LLMs, ChatGPT suffers from hallucination problems. As it does not have access to an external knowledge base, more extrinsic hallucinations are generated [7].”
From Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT, Bing, and Medical Students in Germany (2023) · cites this paper as [7]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models
Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., & Ommer, B. (2022) · 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52688.2022.01042 · Cited by 20,302 · cited 2×
“…is a purely text-prompted language model, it is unlikely to explore its multimodal capabilities with visual inputs like contemporary vision-language works (Rombach et al., 2022; Ramesh et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021a; Radford et al., 2021; Dai et al., 2022; Lovenia et al., 2022; Dai et al., 2023a).”
BackgroundLearning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision
Radford, A., Kim, J. W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.00020 · Cited by 15,293 · cited 1×
“…is a purely text-prompted language model, it is unlikely to explore its multimodal capabilities with visual inputs like contemporary vision-language works (Rombach et al., 2022; Ramesh et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021a; Radford et al., 2021; Dai et al., 2022; Lovenia et al., 2022; Dai et al., 2023a).”
BackgroundLewis, M., Liu, Y., Goyal, N., Ghazvininejad, M., Mohamed, A., Levy, O., Stoyanov, V., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.703 · Cited by 8,821 · cited 4×
“The large version of Bart (Lewis et al., 2020b) model fine-tuned on both datasets is conducted for comparison.”
MethodInfluentialChain-Of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models
Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q. V., & Zhou, D. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-1800 · Cited by 4,505
GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understanding
Wang, A., Singh, A., Michael, J., Hill, F., Levy, O., & Bowman, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP · doi:10.18653/v1/w18-5446 · Cited by 4,222
Training Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-2011 · Cited by 3,117
BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT
Zhang, T., Kishore, V., Wu, F., Weinberger, K. Q., & Artzi, Y. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.09675 · Cited by 2,865
Teaching Machines to Read and ComprehendPreprint
Hermann, K. M., Kočiský, T., Grefenstette, E., Espeholt, L., Kay, W., Suleyman, M., & Blunsom, P. (2015) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1506.03340 · Cited by 2,855 · cited 1×
“We test on 100 samples from two common summarization datasets: half from SAMSum (Gliwa et al., 2019), a dialogue summarization dataset, and another half from CNN/DM (Hermann et al., 2015; Nallapati et al., 2016), news summarization datasets.”
MethodPaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways
Chowdhery, A., Narang, S., Devlin, J., Bosma, M., Mishra, G., Roberts, A., Barham, P., Chung, H. W., Sutton, C., Gehrmann, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.02311 · Cited by 2,590 · cited 2×
“Training data size affects language understanding and generation ability of LMs (Raffel et al., 2022; Cahyawijaya et al., 2021; Rae et al., 2021; Work-shop et al., 2022; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Hoff-mann et al., 2022).”
BackgroundResultZero-shot text-to-image generation
Ramesh, A., Pavlov, M., Goh, G., Gray, S., Voss, C., Radford, A., Chen, M., & Sutskever, I. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.12092 · Cited by 2,417 · cited 2×
“…is a purely text-prompted language model, it is unlikely to explore its multimodal capabilities with visual inputs like contemporary vision-language works (Rombach et al., 2022; Ramesh et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021a; Radford et al., 2021; Dai et al., 2022; Lovenia et al., 2022; Dai et al., 2023a).”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- Li Du, Xiao Ding, Kai Xiong, Ting Liu, and Bing Qin. 2022. e-CARE: a new dataset for exploring explain- able causal reasoning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 432-446, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
- Simon Frieder, Luca Pinchetti, Ryan-Rhys Grif- fiths, Tommaso Salvatori, Thomas Lukasiewicz, Philipp Christian Petersen, Alexis Chevalier, and Julius Berner. 2023. Mathematical capabilities of chatgpt. · DOI · Paper page
- Aidan Gilson, Conrad Safranek, Thomas Huang, Vimig Socrates, Ling Chi, Richard Andrew Taylor, and David Chartash. 2022. How well does chatgpt do when taking the medical licensing exams? the im- plications of large language models for medical edu- cation and knowledge assessment. medRxiv, pages 2022-12.
- James Hawthorne. 2021. Inductive Logic. In Edward N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philoso- phy, Spring 2021 edition. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
- Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, Tom Hennigan, Eric Noland, Katie Millican, George van den Driessche, Bogdan Damoc, Aurelia Guy, Simon Osindero, Karen Si- monyan, Erich Elsen, Jack W. Rae, Oriol Vinyals, and Laurent Sifre. 2022. Training compute-optimal large language models. · DOI · Paper page
- Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Yejin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2022a. Survey of halluci- nation in natural language generation. ACM Comput. Surv. Just Accepted. · DOI · Paper page
- Wenxiang Jiao, Wenxuan Wang, Jen-tse Huang, Xing Wang, and Zhaopeng Tu. 2023. Is chatgpt a good translator? a preliminary study. · DOI · Paper page
- Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, M Saiful Bari, Mizanur Rahman, Md Amran Hossen Bhuiyan, Shafiq Joty, and Jimmy Huang. 2023a. A systematic study and comprehensive evaluation of ChatGPT on benchmark datasets. In Findings of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 431-469, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
- Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020b. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and com- prehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880.
- Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Ku- mar, Benjamin Newman, Binhang Yuan, Bobby Yan, Ce Zhang, Christian Cosgrove, Christopher D. Man- ning, Christopher Ré, Diana Acosta-Navas, Drew A. Hudson, Eric Zelikman, Esin Durmus, Faisal Lad- hak, Frieda Rong, Hongyu Ren, Huaxiu Yao, Jue Wang, Keshav Santhanam, Laurel Orr, Lucia Zheng, Mert Yuksekgonul, Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Kim, Neel Guha, Niladri Chatterji, Omar Khattab, Peter Henderson, Qian Huang, Ryan Chi, Sang Michael Xie, Shibani Santurkar, Surya Ganguli, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Thomas Icard, Tianyi Zhang, Vishrav Chaudhary, William Wang, Xuechen Li, Yifan Mai, Yuhui Zhang, and Yuta Koreeda. 2022. Holistic eval- uation of language models. · DOI · Paper page
- Hongyuan Lu, Haoyang Huang, Shuming Ma, Dong- dong Zhang, Wai Lam, and Furu Wei. 2022. Trip: Triangular document-level pre-training for multilingual language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.07752. · arXiv
- Pasquale Minervini, Sebastian Riedel, Pontus Stenetorp, Edward Grefenstette, and Tim Rocktäschel. 2020. Learning reasoning strategies in end-to-end differen- tiable proving. In Proceedings of the 37th Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'20. JMLR.org.
- Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9.
- Partha Pratim Ray. 2023. Chatgpt: A comprehensive review on background, applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems.
- Zhengxiang Shi, Qiang Zhang, and Aldo Lipani. 2022b. StepGame: A new benchmark for robust multi-hop spatial reasoning in texts. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 36(10):11321- 11329. · DOI
- Kurt Shuster, Jing Xu, Mojtaba Komeili, Da Ju, Eric Michael Smith, Stephen Roller, Megan Ung, Moya Chen, Kushal Arora, Joshua Lane, Morteza Behrooz, William Ngan, Spencer Poff, Naman Goyal, Arthur Szlam, Y-Lan Boureau, Melanie Kambadur, and Jason Weston. 2022. Blenderbot 3: a deployed conversational agent that continually learns to respon- sibly engage. · DOI · Paper page
- Zhiqing Sun, Xuezhi Wang, Yi Tay, Yiming Yang, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Recitation-augmented language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations.
- Ada Wan. 2022. Fairness in representation for multi- lingual NLP: Insights from controlled experiments on conditional language modeling. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
- Peter Cathcart Wason and Philip Nicholas Johnson- Laird. 1972. Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content, volume 86. Harvard University Press.
- Jason Weston, Antoine Bordes, Sumit Chopra, and Tomás Mikolov. 2016a. Towards ai-complete ques- tion answering: A set of prerequisite toy tasks. In 4th International Conference on Learning Represen- tations, ICLR 2016, San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 2-4, 2016, Conference Track Proceedings.
- PMLR.
- Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah Good- man. 2022. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with rea- soning. In Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models
Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Yang, L., Zhu, K., Chen, H., Yi, X., Wang, C., Wang, Y., et al. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3641289 · Cited by 4,254
“, 2023) ✓ ✓ (Bang et al., 2023) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ (Bai et al.”
BackgroundInfluentialHuang, L., Yu, W., Ma, W., Zhong, W., Feng, Z., Wang, H., Chen, Q., Peng, W., Feng, X., Qin, B., et al. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3703155 · Cited by 4,688
Unifying Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: A Roadmap
Pan, S., Luo, L., Wang, Y., Chen, C., Wang, J., & Wu, X. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2024.3352100 · Cited by 1,376
Practical and ethical challenges of large language models in education: A systematic scoping review
Yan, L., Sha, L., Zhao, L., Li, Y., Martinez‐Maldonado, R., Chen, G., Li, X., Jin, Y., & Gašević, D. (2024) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13370 · Cited by 1,435
How is ChatGPT's behavior changing over time?
Chen, L., Zaharia, M., & Zou, J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.09009 · Cited by 507
Metadata
- Authors
- Bang, Y., Cahyawijaya, S., Lee, N., Dai, W., Su, D., Wilie, B., Lovenia, H., Ji, Z., Yu, T., Chung, W., Do, Q. V., Xu, Y., & Fung, P.
- Affiliations
- Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HK)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2302.04023
- OpenAlex
- W4319793302
- Cited by
- 337
- References
- 151
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 101 · 2023: 184
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, LLM evaluation, hallucinations, reasoning, multilingual NLP, multimodal generation, zero-shot learning, commonsense reasoning, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, human-AI collaboration, prompt engineering, summarization, machine translation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
