MM-MATH: Advancing Multimodal Math Evaluation with Process Evaluation and Fine-grained Classification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.05091v4
• Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 12:46:23 GMT
• Title: MM-MATH: Advancing Multimodal Math Evaluation with Process Evaluation and Fine-grained Classification
• Authors: Kai Sun, Yushi Bai, Ji Qi, Lei Hou, Juanzi Li,
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces a novel benchmark, MM-MATH, for evaluating multimodal math reasoning. MM-MATH consists of 5,929 open-ended middle school math problems with visual contexts, with fine-grained classification across difficulty, grade level, and knowledge points. The best-performing model achieves only 31% accuracy on MM-MATH, compared to 82% for humans.
• Score: 41.53026834367054
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: To advance the evaluation of multimodal math reasoning in large multimodal models (LMMs), this paper introduces a novel benchmark, MM-MATH. MM-MATH consists of 5,929 open-ended middle school math problems with visual contexts, with fine-grained classification across difficulty, grade level, and knowledge points. Unlike existing benchmarks relying on binary answer comparison, MM-MATH incorporates both outcome and process evaluations. Process evaluation employs LMM-as-a-judge to automatically analyze solution steps, identifying and categorizing errors into specific error types. Extensive evaluation of ten models on MM-MATH reveals significant challenges for existing LMMs, highlighting their limited utilization of visual information and struggles with higher-difficulty problems. The best-performing model achieves only 31% accuracy on MM-MATH, compared to 82% for humans. This highlights the challenging nature of our benchmark for existing models and the significant gap between the multimodal reasoning capabilities of current models and humans. Our process evaluation reveals that diagram misinterpretation is the most common error, accounting for more than half of the total error cases, underscoring the need for improved image comprehension in multimodal reasoning.

Related papers

• MMIE: Massive Multimodal Interleaved Comprehension Benchmark for Large Vision-Language Models [71.36392373876505]
  We introduce MMIE, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating interleaved multimodal comprehension and generation in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) MMIE comprises 20K meticulously curated multimodal queries, spanning 3 categories, 12 fields, and 102 subfields, including mathematics, coding, physics, literature, health, and arts. It supports both interleaved inputs and outputs, offering a mix of multiple-choice and open-ended question formats to evaluate diverse competencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T04:15:00Z)
• ErrorRadar: Benchmarking Complex Mathematical Reasoning of Multimodal Large Language Models Via Error Detection [60.297079601066784]
  We introduce ErrorRadar, the first benchmark designed to assess MLLMs' capabilities in error detection. ErrorRadar evaluates two sub-tasks: error step identification and error categorization. It consists of 2,500 high-quality multimodal K-12 mathematical problems, collected from real-world student interactions. Results indicate significant challenges still remain, as GPT-4o with best performance is still around 10% behind human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-06T14:59:09Z)
• CMM-Math: A Chinese Multimodal Math Dataset To Evaluate and Enhance the Mathematics Reasoning of Large Multimodal Models [35.9843681685377]
  We release a Chinese multimodal math (CMM-Math) dataset to evaluate and enhance the mathematical reasoning of LMMs. CMM-Math contains over 28,000 high-quality samples with detailed solutions across 12 grade levels from elementary to high school in China. We propose a Multimodal Mathematical LMM (Math-LMM) to handle the problems with mixed input of multiple images and text segments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-04T16:00:21Z)
• Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning Beyond Accuracy [50.09931172314218]
  We introduce ReasonEval, a new methodology for evaluating the quality of reasoning steps. We show that ReasonEval achieves state-of-the-art performance on human-labeled datasets. We observe that ReasonEval can play a significant role in data selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T17:18:04Z)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• Measuring Multimodal Mathematical Reasoning with MATH-Vision Dataset [33.65525875690291]
  We present the MATH-Vision dataset, a collection of 3,040 high-quality mathematical problems with visual contexts sourced from real math competitions. Through extensive experimentation, we unveil a notable performance gap between current LMMs and human performance on MATH-V. Our detailed categorization allows for a thorough error analysis of LMMs, offering valuable insights to guide future research and development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-22T18:56:38Z)
• MM-Vet: Evaluating Large Multimodal Models for Integrated Capabilities [159.9847317300497]
  We propose MM-Vet, an evaluation benchmark that examines large multimodal models (LMMs) on complicated multimodal tasks. Recent LMMs have shown various intriguing abilities, such as solving math problems written on the blackboard, reasoning about events and celebrities in news images, and explaining visual jokes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-04T17:59:47Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.