REVIEW 2 cited by
Peacock: A Family of Arabic Multimodal Large Language Models and Benchmarks
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have proven effective in a wide range of tasks requiring complex reasoning and linguistic comprehension. However, due to a lack of high-quality multimodal resources in languages other than English, success of MLLMs remains relatively limited to English-based settings. This poses significant challenges in developing comparable models for other languages, including even those with large speaker populations such as Arabic. To alleviate this challenge, we introduce a comprehensive family of Arabic MLLMs, dubbed \textit{Peacock}, with strong vision and language capabilities. Through comprehensive qualitative and quantitative analysis, we demonstrate the solid performance of our models on various visual reasoning tasks and further show their emerging dialectal potential. Additionally, we introduce ~\textit{Henna}, a new benchmark specifically designed for assessing MLLMs on aspects related to Arabic culture, setting the first stone for culturally-aware Arabic MLLMs.The GitHub repository for the \textit{Peacock} project is available at \url{https://github.com/UBC-NLP/peacock}.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
ARB: A Comprehensive Arabic Multimodal Reasoning Benchmark
ARB provides 1,356 Arabic multimodal questions with 5,119 human-reviewed reasoning steps and shows leading models score much higher on reasoning fluency than on correct answers.
-
QARI-OCR: High-Fidelity Arabic Text Recognition through Multimodal Large Language Model Adaptation
Fine-tuning Qwen2-VL on synthetic Arabic data yields QARI v0.2 with CER 0.061 and WER 0.160 on the authors' private test set, but public SARD results show Mistral OCR is more accurate.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.