Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

VisScience: An Extensive Benchmark for Evaluating K12 Educational Multi-modal Scientific Reasoning

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

arxiv 2409.13730 v2 pith:7EA4AI3N submitted 2024-09-10 cs.AI cs.CL

classification cs.AIcs.CL
keywords mllmsscientificmulti-modalreasoningvissciencevisualacrossbenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities across various tasks by integrating textual and visual information to achieve visual understanding in complex scenarios. Despite the availability of several benchmarks aims to evaluating MLLMs in tasks from visual question answering to complex problem-solving, most focus predominantly on mathematics or general visual understanding tasks. This reveals a critical gap in current benchmarks, which often overlook the inclusion of other key scientific disciplines such as physics and chemistry. To address this gap, we meticulously construct a comprehensive benchmark, named VisScience, which is utilized to assess the multi-modal scientific reasoning across the three disciplines of mathematics, physics, and chemistry. This benchmark comprises 3,000 questions drawn from K12 education - spanning elementary school through high school - equally distributed across three disciplines, with 1,000 questions per discipline. The questions within VisScience span 21 distinct subjects and are categorized into five difficulty levels, offering a broad spectrum of topics within each discipline. With VisScience, we present a detailed evaluation of the performance of 25 representative MLLMs in scientific reasoning. Experimental results demonstrate that closed-source MLLMs generally outperform open-source models. The best performance observed include a 53.4\% accuracy in mathematics by Claude3.5-Sonnet, 38.2\% in physics by GPT-4o, and 47.0\% in chemistry by Gemini-1.5-Pro. These results underscore the strengths and limitations of MLLMs, suggesting areas for future improvement and highlighting the importance of developing models that can effectively handle the diverse demands of multi-modal scientific reasoning.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. VRBench: A Benchmark for Multi-Step Reasoning in Long Narrative Videos

    cs.CV 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    VRBench is a benchmark of 960 long narrative videos with 8,243 human-written multi-step questions, plus a two-level evaluation of answer accuracy and reasoning quality for 31 large models.

  2. K12Vista: Exploring the Boundaries of MLLMs in K-12 Education

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new Chinese K-12 multimodal benchmark with 33,660 questions, an 840K process-evaluation dataset, and a fine-tuned step-level evaluator shows current MLLMs solve under 60% of questions and make frequent reasoning errors.

  3. Seeing is Not Reasoning: MVPBench for Graph-based Evaluation of Multi-path Visual Physical CoT

    cs.CV 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new multi-image benchmark and graph-based scoring method show that MLLMs produce weak, poorly-grounded chains of thought on visual physics tasks, and that RL post-training can degrade spatial reasoning.

  4. Domain Specific Benchmarks for Evaluating Multimodal Large Language Models

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A review paper that organizes domain-specific MLLM benchmarks into an eight-discipline taxonomy, with summary tables and performance highlights.

Pith tools