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
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Querying Multimodal Scientific Papers with AI: Practices and Preferences Across Blind, Low-Vision, and Sighted Scientists
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...
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.