Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Measuring Massive Multitask Chinese Understanding

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 2304.12986 v3 pith:7EJGAANZ submitted 2023-04-25 cs.CL cs.AI

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

The development of large-scale Chinese language models is flourishing, yet there is a lack of corresponding capability assessments. Therefore, we propose a test to measure the multitask accuracy of large Chinese language models. This test encompasses four major domains, including medicine, law, psychology, and education, with 15 subtasks in medicine and 8 subtasks in education. We found that the best-performing models in the zero-shot setting outperformed the worst-performing models by nearly 18.6 percentage points on average. Across the four major domains, the highest average zero-shot accuracy of all models is 0.512. In the subdomains, only the GPT-3.5-turbo model achieved a zero-shot accuracy of 0.693 in clinical medicine, which was the highest accuracy among all models across all subtasks. All models performed poorly in the legal domain, with the highest zero-shot accuracy reaching only 0.239. By comprehensively evaluating the breadth and depth of knowledge across multiple disciplines, this test can more accurately identify the shortcomings of the models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. Characterizing Bias: Benchmarking Large Language Models in Simplified versus Traditional Chinese

    cs.CL 2025-05 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new benchmark shows LLMs are more accurate in Simplified Chinese for regional terms but favor Taiwanese names in simulated hiring, revealing task-dependent bias between Chinese script variants.

Pith tools