PreprintCited by 4

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

M3Exam: A Multilingual, Multimodal, Multilevel Benchmark for Examining Large Language Models

Zhang, Wenxuan, Aljunied, Sharifah Mahani, Gao, Chang, Chia, Yew Ken, Bing, Lidong·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Despite the existence of various benchmarks for evaluating natural language processing models, we argue that human exams are a more suitable means of evaluating general intelligence for large language models (LLMs), as they inherently demand a much wider range of abilities such as language understanding, domain knowledge, and problem-solving skills. To this end, we introduce M3Exam, a novel benchmark sourced from real and official human exam questions for evaluating LLMs in a multilingual, multimodal, and multilevel context. M3Exam exhibits three unique characteristics: (1) multilingualism, encompassing questions from multiple countries that require strong multilingual proficiency and cultural knowledge; (2) multimodality, accounting for the multimodal nature of many exam questions to test the model's multimodal understanding capability; and (3) multilevel structure, featuring exams from three critical educational periods to comprehensively assess a model's proficiency at different levels. In total, M3Exam contains 12,317 questions in 9 diverse languages with three educational levels, where about 23\% of the questions require processing images for successful solving. We assess the performance of top-performing LLMs on M3Exam and find that current models, including GPT-4, still struggle with multilingual text, particularly in low-resource and non-Latin script languages. Multimodal LLMs also perform poorly with complex multimodal questions. We believe that M3Exam can be a valuable resource for comprehensively evaluating LLMs by examining their multilingual and multimodal abilities and tracking their development. Data and evaluation code is available at \url{https://github.com/DAMO-NLP-SG/M3Exam}.

Verifying this paper

8 of 9 steps done · this page updates itself — you can leave and come back

  1. Registry recordVerified
  2. Full textFetching the open-access text — a few minutes for a paper we haven’t read before
  3. Reference listNot fetched yet
  4. Reference checkNot run yet for this paper
  5. StatisticsNeeds the full text
  6. ClaimsNeeds the full text
  7. Cited sourcesNeeds claims to check
  8. Self-checkNeeds the full text
  9. VerificationFindings verified

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2306.05179

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • M3Exam provides a unique and comprehensive evaluation framework incorporating multiple languages, modalities, and levels to test general capabilities of LLMs in diverse contexts.

    “M3Exam [250] provides a unique and comprehensive evaluation framework that incorporates multiple languages, modalities, and levels to test the general capabilities of LLMs in diverse contexts.”

    From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [250]

  • In linguistic contexts featuring non-Latin scripts and limited resources, LLMs manifest suboptimal performance.

    “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 [250]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, W., Aljunied, S. M., Gao, C., Chia, Y. K., & Bing, L.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
References
1
Type
Preprint

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