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
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
- Registry recordVerified
- Full textFetching the open-access text — a few minutes for a paper we haven’t read before
- Reference listNot fetched yet
- Reference checkNot run yet for this paper
- StatisticsNeeds the full text
- ClaimsNeeds the full text
- Cited sourcesNeeds claims to check
- Self-checkNeeds the full text
- 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.
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?
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
AGIEval: A Human-Centric Benchmark for Evaluating Foundation Models
Zhong, W., Cui, R., Guo, Y., Liang, Y., Lu, S., Wang, Y., Saied, A., Chen, W., & Duan, N. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.06364 · Cited by 211 · cited 4×
“Firstly, the majority of these benchmarks focus on questions in English [17, 43], neglecting the evaluation of a model’s performance in a multilingual context.”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Flagged first, then by citations
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
“M3Exam (Zhang et al., 2023c) provides a unique and comprehensive evaluation framework that incorporates multiple languages, modalities, and levels to test the general capabilities of LLMs in diverse contexts.”
BackgroundInfluentialBenchmarking Large Language Models in Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Chen, J., Lin, H., Han, X., & Sun, L. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i16.29728 · Cited by 454
ChatGPT: The End of Online Exam Integrity?
Susnjak, T. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.09292 · Cited by 370
“Indeed, very recent studies [38,42] have suggested that LLMs do perform poorly on complex reasoning tasks that combine both visual and text-based modalities into exam questions.”
InfluentialTyphoon: Thai Large Language Models
Pipatanakul, K., Jirabovonvisut, P., Manakul, P., Sripaisarnmongkol, S., Patomwong, R., Chokchainant, P., & Tharnpipitchai, K. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.13951 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, W., Aljunied, S. M., Gao, C., Chia, Y. K., & Bing, L.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- arXiv
- 2306.05179
- 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