REVIEW 1 cited by
IsoBench: Benchmarking Multimodal Foundation Models on Isomorphic Representations
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
IsoBench: Benchmarking Multimodal Foundation Models on Isomorphic Representations
read the original abstract
Current foundation models exhibit impressive capabilities when prompted either with text only or with both image and text inputs. But do their capabilities change depending on the input modality? In this work, we propose $\textbf{IsoBench}$, a benchmark dataset containing problems from four major areas: math, science, algorithms, and games. Each example is presented with multiple $\textbf{isomorphic representations}$ of inputs, such as visual, textual, and mathematical presentations. IsoBench provides fine-grained feedback to diagnose performance gaps caused by the form of the representation. Across various foundation models, we observe that on the same problem, models have a consistent preference towards textual representations. Most prominently, when evaluated on all IsoBench problems, Claude-3 Opus performs 28.7 points worse when provided with images instead of text; similarly, GPT-4 Turbo is 18.7 points worse and Gemini Pro is 14.9 points worse. Finally, we present two prompting techniques, $\textit{IsoCombination}$ and $\textit{IsoScratchPad}$, which improve model performance by considering combinations of, and translations between, different input representations.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
ErrorRadar: Benchmarking Complex Mathematical Reasoning of Multimodal Large Language Models Via Error Detection
ErrorRadar is a new benchmark of 2,500 multimodal K-12 math problems for MLLM error step identification and categorization, where GPT-4o trails human experts by ~10%.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.