Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

M3SciQA: A Multi-Modal Multi-Document Scientific QA Benchmark for Evaluating Foundation Models

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 2411.04075 v1 pith:NY2IQIFT submitted 2024-11-06 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords foundationmodelsmulti-modalm3sciqascientificdocumentsmulti-documentacross
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Existing benchmarks for evaluating foundation models mainly focus on single-document, text-only tasks. However, they often fail to fully capture the complexity of research workflows, which typically involve interpreting non-textual data and gathering information across multiple documents. To address this gap, we introduce M3SciQA, a multi-modal, multi-document scientific question answering benchmark designed for a more comprehensive evaluation of foundation models. M3SciQA consists of 1,452 expert-annotated questions spanning 70 natural language processing paper clusters, where each cluster represents a primary paper along with all its cited documents, mirroring the workflow of comprehending a single paper by requiring multi-modal and multi-document data. With M3SciQA, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of 18 foundation models. Our results indicate that current foundation models still significantly underperform compared to human experts in multi-modal information retrieval and in reasoning across multiple scientific documents. Additionally, we explore the implications of these findings for the future advancement of applying foundation models in multi-modal scientific literature analysis.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Querying Multimodal Scientific Papers with AI: Practices and Preferences Across Blind, Low-Vision, and Sighted Scientists

    cs.HC 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A study of 115 real AI queries shows BLV scientists use chatbots mainly to access figures and tables (49% of queries) while sighted scientists use them to synthesize methods (56%), and both groups abandon AI tools ove...

Pith tools