The DOI matches its DataCite record; 33 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
AGIEval: A Human-Centric Benchmark for Evaluating Foundation Models
Open accessAbstract
Evaluating the general abilities of foundation models to tackle human-level tasks is a vital aspect of their development and application in the pursuit of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). Traditional benchmarks, which rely on artificial datasets, may not accurately represent human-level capabilities. In this paper, we introduce AGIEval, a novel benchmark specifically designed to assess foundation model in the context of human-centric standardized exams, such as college entrance exams, law school admission tests, math competitions, and lawyer qualification tests. We evaluate several state-of-the-art foundation models, including GPT-4, ChatGPT, and Text-Davinci-003, using this benchmark. Impressively, GPT-4 surpasses average human performance on SAT, LSAT, and math competitions, attaining a 95% accuracy rate on the SAT Math test and a 92.5% accuracy on the English test of the Chinese national college entrance exam. This demonstrates the extraordinary performance of contemporary foundation models. In contrast, we also find that GPT-4 is less proficient in tasks that require complex reasoning or specific domain knowledge. Our comprehensive analyses of model capabilities (understanding, knowledge, reasoning, and calculation) reveal these models' strengths and limitations, providing valuable insights into future directions for enhancing their general capabilities. By concentrating on tasks pertinent to human cognition and decision-making, our benchmark delivers a more meaningful and robust evaluation of foundation models' performance in real-world scenarios. The data, code, and all model outputs are released in https://github.com/ruixiangcui/AGIEval.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“While LLMs have been shown to excel at these tasks (Wang et al., 2022;Zhong et al., 2023)”
From MedScore: Generalizable Factuality Evaluation of Open-ended Long-form Medical Answers by Domain-adapted Claim Decomposition and Verification (2026) · cites this paper as Zhong et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“AGIEval [262], serves as a dedicated evaluation framework for assessing the performance of foundation models in the domain of human-centric standardized exams.”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [262]
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
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 · Cited by 54,325 · cited 3×
“The emergence of general language models (LMs) like BERT (Devlin et al., 2019) has made it increasingly essential to develop more comprehensive benchmarks to assess the general capabilities of these LMs. GLUE (Wang et al., 2018) and SuperGLUE (Wang et al., 2019) are popular benchmarks that evaluate…”
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372 · cited 3×
“Large Foundation Model: Recently, large foundation models, like LLMs (e.g., GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023), OPT (Zhang et al., 2022a) and FLAN-T5 (Chung et al., 2022)) have successfully demonstrated unprecedented performance in a wide range of natural language tasks.”
LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models
Touvron, H., Lavril, T., Izacard, G., Martinet, X., Lachaux, M.-A., Lacroix, T., Rozière, B., Goyal, N., Hambro, E., Azhar, F., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.13971 · Cited by 4,602 · cited 1×
“, 2022), LLaMa-65B (Touvron et al., 2023) and InternLM-104B (SenseTime, 2023)) on AGIEval.”
Chain-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., & Zhou, D. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.11903 · Cited by 4,263 · cited 2×
“Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting (Wei et al., 2022) enables large language models to break down a complex question to a series of decomposed reasoning steps.”
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 · cited 3×
“GLUE series benchmarks have significantly influenced language model development, encouraging researchers to enhance their models’ generalization capabilities.”
A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inference
Bowman, S. R., Angeli, G., Potts, C., & Manning, C. D. (2015) · Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d15-1075 · Cited by 3,377 · cited 2×
“Emphasis on human-level cognitive tasks: Our human-centric benchmark is designed to mimic human cognition and problem-solving, aiming for a comprehensive evaluation of foundation models.”
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 · cited 1×
“(2022) conducted a holistic evaluation of dozens of language models (up to InstructGPT (Ouyang et al., 2022)) on several previous NLP tasks (e.”
Natural Questions: A benchmark for question answering research
Kwiatkowski, T., Palomaki, J., Redfield, O., Collins, M., Parikh, A., Alberti, C., Epstein, D., Polosukhin, I., Devlin, J., Lee, K., et al. (2019) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00276 · Cited by 2,069 · cited 1×
“, Openbook QA (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019; Mihaylov et al., 2018) and text classification (Clark et al.”
Can a Suit of Armor Conduct Electricity? A New Dataset for Open Book Question Answering
Mihaylov, T., Clark, P. E., Khot, T., & Sabharwal, A. (2018) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1260 · Cited by 1,602 · cited 1×
“, Openbook QA (Kwiatkowski et al., 2019; Mihaylov et al., 2018) and text classification (Clark et al.”
Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4
Bubeck, S., Chandrasekaran, V., Eldan, R., Gehrke, J., Horvitz, E., Kamar, E., Lee, P., Lee, Y. T., Li, Y., Lundberg, S., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.12712 · Cited by 1,526
Scaling Instruction-Finetuned Language Models
Chung, H. W., Hou, L., Longpre, S., Zoph, B., Tay, Y., Fedus, W., Li, Y., Wang, X., Dehghani, M., Brahma, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.11416 · Cited by 1,441 · cited 1×
“Large Foundation Model: Recently, large foundation models, like LLMs (e.g., GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023), OPT (Zhang et al., 2022a) and FLAN-T5 (Chung et al., 2022)) have successfully demonstrated unprecedented performance in a wide range of natural language tasks.”
FEVER: a Large-scale Dataset for Fact Extraction and VERification
Thorne, J., Vlachos, A., Christodoulopoulos, C., & Mittal, A. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n18-1074 · Cited by 1,343
GLM: General Language Model Pretraining with Autoregressive Blank Infilling
Du, Z., Qian, Y., Liu, X., Ding, M., Qiu, J., Yang, Z., & Tang, J. (2022) · Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.26 · Cited by 1,068 · cited 1×
“A recent technical report (SenseTime, 2023) further evaluates foundation models (GLM130B (Du et al., 2022), LLaMa-65B (Touvron et al.”
SuperGLUE: A Stickier Benchmark for General-Purpose Language Understanding Systems
Wang, A., Pruksachatkun, Y., Nangia, N., Singh, A., Michael, J., Hill, F., Levy, O., & Bowman, S. R. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.00537 · Cited by 1,051 · cited 3×
“, 2018) and SuperGLUE (Wang et al., 2019) are popular benchmarks that evaluate language model performance across diverse NLP tasks, including paraphrase identification, sentiment analysis, and more.”
BoolQ: Exploring the Surprising Difficulty of Natural Yes/No Questions
Clark, C., Lee, K., Chang, M.-W., Kwiatkowski, T., Collins, M., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1300 · Cited by 655
ChatGPT Goes to Law SchoolPreprint
Choi, J. H., Hickman, K. E., Monahan, A., & Schwarcz, D. B. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4335905 · Cited by 565 · cited 1×
“Lawyer Qualification Test: Including the bar exam, these tests assess legal knowledge, analytical skills, and ethical understanding.”
Holistic Evaluation of Language Models
Bommasani, R., Liang, P., & Lee, T. (2023) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.15007 · Cited by 480 · cited 1×
“The following categories of human-centric exams are included in our benchmark: General College Entrance Exams: Including the GRE, SAT, and Gaokao, these exams assess critical thinking, problem-solving, and analytical skills for entry into higher education.”
SentEval: An Evaluation Toolkit for Universal Sentence Representations
Conneau, A., & Kiela, D. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1803.05449 · Cited by 477 · cited 1×
“SentEval (Conneau and Kiela, 2018) and De-caNLP (McCann et al., 2018) also set benchmarks for evaluating models’ general capabilities.”
The Natural Language Decathlon: Multitask Learning as Question Answering
McCann, B., Keskar, N. S., Xiong, C., & Socher, R. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1806.08730 · Cited by 448 · cited 1×
“SentEval (Conneau and Kiela, 2018) and De-caNLP (McCann et al., 2018) also set benchmarks for evaluating models’ general capabilities.”
Retrieve, Program, Repeat: Complex Knowledge Base Question Answering via Alternate Meta-learning
Hua, Y.-C., Li, Y.-F., Haffari, G., Qi, G., & Wu, W. (2020) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2020/505 · Cited by 398
Solving Quantitative Reasoning Problems with Language Models
Lewkowycz, A., Andreassen, A., Dohan, D., Dyer, E., Michalewski, H., Ramasesh, V., Slone, A., Anil, C., Schlag, I., Gutman-Solo, T., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.14858 · Cited by 358 · cited 1×
“For MATH, we use the same instances as in the appendices of Lewkowycz et al. (2022).”
Program Induction by Rationale Generation: Learning to Solve and Explain Algebraic Word Problems
Ling, W., Yogatama, D., Dyer, C., & Blunsom, P. (2017) · Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p17-1015 · Cited by 325 · cited 1×
“Furthermore, we incorporate GRE and GMAT questions from AQaA-RAT (Ling et al., 2017), which emphasizes algebraic word problems.”
Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset
Hendrycks, D., Burns, C., Kadavath, S., Arora, A., Basart, S., Tang, E., Song, D., & Steinhardt, J. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.03874 · Cited by 306
Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding
Hendrycks, D., Burns, C., Basart, S., Zou, A., Mazeika, M., Song, D., & Steinhardt, J. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.03300 · Cited by 291 · cited 3×
“(2) AGIEval is bilingual (English and Chinese), broadening the assessment scope across languages and cultures, whereas MMLU is solely English-based.”
InfluentialToxiGen: A Large-Scale Machine-Generated Dataset for Adversarial and Implicit Hate Speech Detection
Hartvigsen, T., Gabriel, S., Palangi, H., Sap, M., Ray, D., & Kamar, E. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.09509 · Cited by 276 · cited 1×
“The following categories of human-centric exams are included in our benchmark: General College Entrance Exams: Including the GRE, SAT, and Gaokao, these exams assess critical thinking, problem-solving, and analytical skills for entry into higher education.”
Automatic Chain of Thought Prompting in Large Language Models
Zhang, Z., Zhang, A., Li, M., & Smola, A. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.03493 · Cited by 274 · cited 2×
“Large Foundation Model: Recently, large foundation models, like LLMs (e.g., GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023), OPT (Zhang et al., 2022a) and FLAN-T5 (Chung et al., 2022)) have successfully demonstrated unprecedented performance in a wide range of natural language tasks.”
JEC-QA: A Legal-Domain Question Answering DatasetPreprint
Zhong, H., Xiao, C.-J., Tu, C.-C., Zhang, T., Liu, Z., & Sun, M. (2019) · AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.12011 · Cited by 250 · cited 4×
“For LogiQA, JEC-QA and LSAT, we use ChatGPT to generate explanations given the questions and the answers.”
InfluentialBOLD: Dataset and Metrics for Measuring Biases in Open-Ended Language Generation
Dhamala, J., Sun, T., Kumar, V., Krishna, S., Pruksachatkun, Y., Chang, K.-W., & Gupta, R. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3442188.3445924 · Cited by 244 · cited 1×
“Toxi-Gen (Hartvigsen et al., 2022) and BOLD (Dhamala et al., 2021) evaluate the bias in language models.”
The LAMBADA dataset: Word prediction requiring a broad discourse context
Paperno, D., Kruszewski, G., Lazaridou, A., Pham, N. Q., Bernardi, R., Pezzelle, S., Baroni, M., Boleda, G., & Fernandez, R. (2016) · Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/p16-1144 · Cited by 87 · cited 1×
“The LAMBADA language modeling task (Paperno et al., 2016) assesses language models’ ability to capture long-range dependencies in text.”
From LSAT: The Progress and Challenges of Complex ReasoningPreprint
Wang, S., Liu, Z.-K., Zhong, W.-J., Zhou, M., Wei, Z.-Y., Chen, Z.-M., & Duan, N. (2021) · IEEE/ACM Transactions on Audio Speech and Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.00648 · Cited by 71
Self-citationEhrmann, M., Romanello, M., Doucet, A., & Clematide, S. (2022) · European Conference on Information Retrieval · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-99739-7_44 · Cited by 22 · cited 1×
“Numerous benchmarks (Thorne et al., 2018; Rajpurkar et al., 2016; Bowman et al., 2015; Ehrmann et al., 2022) have been proposed and widely adopted for evaluating single-task performance, such as SQuAD (Rajpurkar et al.”
Zhong, W., Wang, S., Tang, D., Xu, Z., Guo, D., Chen, Y., Wang, J., Yin, J., Zhou, M., & Duan, N. (2022) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-naacl.177 · Cited by 18 · cited 1×
“For the LSAT, we utilize data from Wang et al. (2022) and Zhong et al. (2022), which encompasses three tasks (logical reasoning, reading comprehension, and analytical reasoning) from the LSAT administered between 1991 and 2016.”
Self-citationOPT: Open Pre-trained Transformer Language Models
Zhang, S., Roller, S., Goyal, N., Artetxe, M., Chen, M., Chen, S., Dewan, C., Diab, M., Li, X., Lin, X. V., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.01068 · cited 1×
“Large Foundation Model: Recently, large foundation models, like LLMs (e.g., GPT-3 (Brown et al., 2020), GPT-4 (OpenAI, 2023), OPT (Zhang et al., 2022a) and FLAN-T5 (Chung et al., 2022)) have successfully demonstrated unprecedented performance in a wide range of natural language tasks.”
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Jian Liu, Leyang Cui, Hanmeng Liu, Dandan Huang, Yile Wang, and Yue Zhang. Logiqa: a challenge dataset for machine reading comprehension with logical reasoning. In Proceedings of the Twenty- Ninth International Conference on International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 3622-3628, 2021.
- Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. Squad: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 2383-2392, 2016.
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
“Furthermore, AGIEval [247], serves as a dedicated evaluation framework for assessing the performance of foundation models in the domain of human-centric standardized exams.”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationLlama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models
Touvron, H., Martin, L., Stone, K., Albert, P., Almahairi, A., Babaei, Y., Bashlykov, N., Batra, S., Bhargava, P., Bhosale, S., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.09288 · Cited by 2,604
“In Table 24, we present fine-grained results from the English part of the AGI Eval (Zhong et al., 2023) benchmark.”
BackgroundInfluentialGemma Team, Kamath, A., Ferret, J., Pathak, S., Vieillard, N., Merhej, R., Perrin, S., Matejovicova, T., Ramé, A., Rivière, M., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.19786 · Cited by 1,156
Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena
Zheng, L., Chiang, W.-L., Sheng, Y., Zhuang, S., Wu, Z., Zhuang, Y., Lin, Z., Li, Z., Li, D., Xing, E. P., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.05685 · Cited by 1,888
“• Core-knowledge benchmarks, including MMLU [16], HellaSwag [41], ARC [8], WinoGrande [31], HumanEval [6], GSM-8K [9], and AGIEval [42], evaluate the core capabilities of pre-trained LLMs using zero-shot and few-shot benchmark sets.”
MethodC-Eval: A Multi-Level Multi-Discipline Chinese Evaluation Suite for Foundation Models
Huang, Y., Bai, Y., Zhu, Z., Zhang, J., Zhang, J., Su, T., Liu, J., Lv, C., Zhang, Y., Lei, J., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.08322 · Cited by 373
“Recently, the AGIEval benchmark (Zhong et al., 2023) contains data from the Chinese College Entrance Exam, Chinese lawyer qualification test and Chinese civil service examination.”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhong, W., Cui, R., Guo, Y., Liang, Y., Lu, S., Wang, Y., Saied, A., Chen, W., & Duan, N.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Pages
- 2299-2314
- arXiv
- 2304.06364
- OpenAlex
- W4401042689
- Cited by
- 211
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 28 · 2025: 97 · 2024: 68 · 2023: 18
- FWCI
- 56.96
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- standardized testing, college entrance examination, LSAT, GPT-4, artificial general intelligence
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
