{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2023:FMJQSJSFFAOLGAFINRTNTVFPHH","short_pith_number":"pith:FMJQSJSF","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"2b13092645281cb300a86c66d9d4af39df07b806108f271b30a4904d70721687","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2302.04023","version":4},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivity","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","headline":"ChatGPT averages 63.41% accuracy across ten reasoning categories and improves only modestly with human interaction.","cross_cats":["cs.AI"],"primary_cat":"cs.CL","authors_text":"Bryan Wilie, Dan Su, Holy Lovenia, Nayeon Lee, Pascale Fung, Quyet V. Do, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Tiezheng Yu, Wenliang Dai, Willy Chung, Yan Xu, Yejin Bang, Ziwei Ji","submitted_at":"2023-02-08T12:35:34Z","abstract_excerpt":"This paper proposes a framework for quantitatively evaluating interactive LLMs such as ChatGPT using publicly available data sets. We carry out an extensive technical evaluation of ChatGPT using 23 data sets covering 8 different common NLP application tasks. We evaluate the multitask, multilingual and multi-modal aspects of ChatGPT based on these data sets and a newly designed multimodal dataset. We find that ChatGPT outperforms LLMs with zero-shot learning on most tasks and even outperforms fine-tuned models on some tasks. We find that it is better at understanding non-Latin script languages "},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":true,"formal_links_present":true},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"2302.04023","kind":"arxiv","version":4},"metadata":{"license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","primary_cat":"cs.CL","submitted_at":"2023-02-08T12:35:34Z","cross_cats_sorted":["cs.AI"],"title_canon_sha256":"0af1cd3d0f93626347676b13538faee2652ea3b76a43db3c8090a2df56595df6","abstract_canon_sha256":"a2a18e59511c993ddda9d3136987bf9209d89feec0b355f8f79871b9e7e58bd3"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-05-17T23:38:13.237681Z","signature_b64":"IThoSBAEf0JFMRGF+x7vrCK5spKbYgezHYGh9a9BRPafXpogQJvnAAXvgPpLOJoTQaQMJUf8aLVa7wbMbhbyCw==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"2b13092645281cb300a86c66d9d4af39df07b806108f271b30a4904d70721687","last_reissued_at":"2026-05-17T23:38:13.237057Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-05-17T23:38:13.237057Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivity","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","headline":"ChatGPT averages 63.41% accuracy across ten reasoning categories and improves only modestly with human interaction.","cross_cats":["cs.AI"],"primary_cat":"cs.CL","authors_text":"Bryan Wilie, Dan Su, Holy Lovenia, Nayeon Lee, Pascale Fung, Quyet V. Do, Samuel Cahyawijaya, Tiezheng Yu, Wenliang Dai, Willy Chung, Yan Xu, Yejin Bang, Ziwei Ji","submitted_at":"2023-02-08T12:35:34Z","abstract_excerpt":"This paper proposes a framework for quantitatively evaluating interactive LLMs such as ChatGPT using publicly available data sets. We carry out an extensive technical evaluation of ChatGPT using 23 data sets covering 8 different common NLP application tasks. We evaluate the multitask, multilingual and multi-modal aspects of ChatGPT based on these data sets and a newly designed multimodal dataset. We find that ChatGPT outperforms LLMs with zero-shot learning on most tasks and even outperforms fine-tuned models on some tasks. We find that it is better at understanding non-Latin script languages "},"claims":{"count":4,"items":[{"kind":"strongest_claim","text":"ChatGPT is 63.41% accurate on average in 10 different reasoning categories under logical reasoning, non-textual reasoning, and commonsense reasoning, hence making it an unreliable reasoner. It is, for example, better at deductive than inductive reasoning.","source":"verdict.strongest_claim","status":"machine_extracted","claim_id":"C1","attestation":"unclaimed"},{"kind":"weakest_assumption","text":"That the 23 chosen datasets, the newly designed multimodal dataset, and the 10 reasoning categories provide a representative and low-bias measure of ChatGPT capabilities without major sensitivity to prompt wording or subjective hallucination labeling.","source":"verdict.weakest_assumption","status":"machine_extracted","claim_id":"C2","attestation":"unclaimed"},{"kind":"one_line_summary","text":"ChatGPT outperforms zero-shot LLMs on most tasks and improves with interaction but scores only 63.41 percent on reasoning categories and generates extrinsic hallucinations from its training data.","source":"verdict.one_line_summary","status":"machine_extracted","claim_id":"C3","attestation":"unclaimed"},{"kind":"headline","text":"ChatGPT averages 63.41% accuracy across ten reasoning categories and improves only modestly with human interaction.","source":"verdict.pith_extraction.headline","status":"machine_extracted","claim_id":"C4","attestation":"unclaimed"}],"snapshot_sha256":"8a814fab06f443108a773eff91b830adb110c6c355702f7556083a8b920e9519"},"source":{"id":"2302.04023","kind":"arxiv","version":4},"verdict":{"id":"57f14e71-d1ef-47f9-a0e5-6d9394914ccb","model_set":{"reader":"grok-4.3"},"created_at":"2026-05-17T19:53:52.885799Z","strongest_claim":"ChatGPT is 63.41% accurate on average in 10 different reasoning categories under logical reasoning, non-textual reasoning, and commonsense reasoning, hence making it an unreliable reasoner. It is, for example, better at deductive than inductive reasoning.","one_line_summary":"ChatGPT outperforms zero-shot LLMs on most tasks and improves with interaction but scores only 63.41 percent on reasoning categories and generates extrinsic hallucinations from its training data.","pipeline_version":"pith-pipeline@v0.9.0","weakest_assumption":"That the 23 chosen datasets, the newly designed multimodal dataset, and the 10 reasoning categories provide a representative and low-bias measure of ChatGPT capabilities without major sensitivity to prompt wording or subjective hallucination labeling.","pith_extraction_headline":"ChatGPT averages 63.41% accuracy across ten reasoning categories and improves only modestly with human interaction."},"references":{"count":23,"sample":[{"doi":"","year":2023,"title":"News summarization and evaluation in the era of gpt-3","work_id":"ec749274-c88c-461b-8bea-cc527ad5c047","ref_index":1,"cited_arxiv_id":"","is_internal_anchor":false},{"doi":"","year":2021,"title":"In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7890–7900","work_id":"c87a4363-a07c-404a-ac90-4bc9bab7e033","ref_index":2,"cited_arxiv_id":"","is_internal_anchor":false},{"doi":"","year":2022,"title":"Qa dataset explosion: A taxonomy of nlp resources for question answering and reading com- prehension. ACM Comput. Surv. Just Accepted. Robin Rombach, Andreas Blattmann, Dominik Lorenz, Patrick Esser, ","work_id":"34ef0ae1-f5d9-4272-93e7-9deb55e86050","ref_index":3,"cited_arxiv_id":"","is_internal_anchor":false},{"doi":"","year":2022,"title":"Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models","work_id":"bb63abb3-0d50-4362-b97c-b5e725b03b39","ref_index":4,"cited_arxiv_id":"2206.04615","is_internal_anchor":true},{"doi":"","year":2018,"title":"Richmond Thomason","work_id":"0d93f796-a6ff-4975-9a9c-56e6eb348e66","ref_index":5,"cited_arxiv_id":"","is_internal_anchor":false}],"resolved_work":23,"snapshot_sha256":"ffbaf2a528ad96be45f30d139f4641b9f5a1f8d4f1fdc12b4bc353ff7f971730","internal_anchors":2},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":2,"snapshot_sha256":"883f3c61477ebc15cbf623842d0c9eb96fe1dfb7165d54a3f068e40de2bb238b"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"2302.04023","created_at":"2026-05-17T23:38:13.237163+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2302.04023v4","created_at":"2026-05-17T23:38:13.237163+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2302.04023","created_at":"2026-05-17T23:38:13.237163+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":17,"internal_anchor_count":17,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2308.05374","citing_title":"Trustworthy LLMs: a Survey and Guideline for Evaluating Large Language Models' Alignment","ref_index":62,"is_internal_anchor":true},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2311.12871","citing_title":"An Embodied Generalist Agent in 3D World","ref_index":1,"is_internal_anchor":true},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2310.02446","citing_title":"Low-Resource Languages Jailbreak GPT-4","ref_index":4,"is_internal_anchor":true},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2308.03825","citing_title":"\"Do Anything Now\": Characterizing and Evaluating In-The-Wild Jailbreak Prompts on Large Language Models","ref_index":15,"is_internal_anchor":true},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2302.11382","citing_title":"A Prompt Pattern Catalog to Enhance Prompt Engineering with ChatGPT","ref_index":2,"is_internal_anchor":true},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2604.16422","citing_title":"Injecting Structured Biomedical Knowledge into Language Models: Continual Pretraining vs. GraphRAG","ref_index":11,"is_internal_anchor":true},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2311.05232","citing_title":"A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions","ref_index":15,"is_internal_anchor":true},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2604.26590","citing_title":"Recommendations for Efficient and Responsible LLM Adoption within Industrial Software Development","ref_index":5,"is_internal_anchor":true},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2605.04643","citing_title":"Graph-Augmented LLMs for Swiss MP Ideology Prediction","ref_index":134,"is_internal_anchor":true},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2605.05134","citing_title":"Low-Cost Black-Box Detection of LLM Hallucinations via Dynamical System Prediction","ref_index":4,"is_internal_anchor":true},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2605.04449","citing_title":"GEM: Graph-Enhanced Mixture-of-Experts with ReAct Agents for Dialogue State Tracking","ref_index":2,"is_internal_anchor":true},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2305.10355","citing_title":"Evaluating Object Hallucination in Large Vision-Language Models","ref_index":6,"is_internal_anchor":true},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2309.07864","citing_title":"The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey","ref_index":133,"is_internal_anchor":true},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2604.07274","citing_title":"A Systematic Study of Retrieval Pipeline Design for Retrieval-Augmented Medical Question Answering","ref_index":13,"is_internal_anchor":true},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2605.07422","citing_title":"Prompt Engineering Strategies for LLM-based Qualitative Coding of Psychological Safety in Software Engineering Communities: A Controlled Empirical Study","ref_index":1,"is_internal_anchor":true},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2604.13947","citing_title":"Heuristic Style Transfer for Real-Time, Efficient Weather Attribute Detection","ref_index":12,"is_internal_anchor":true},{"citing_arxiv_id":"2604.15547","citing_title":"Consistency Analysis of Sentiment Predictions using Syntactic & Semantic Context Assessment Summarization (SSAS)","ref_index":9,"is_internal_anchor":true}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":2,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/FMJQSJSFFAOLGAFINRTNTVFPHH","json":"https://pith.science/pith/FMJQSJSFFAOLGAFINRTNTVFPHH.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/FMJQSJSFFAOLGAFINRTNTVFPHH/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/FMJQSJSFFAOLGAFINRTNTVFPHH/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/FMJQSJSF"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/FMJQSJSFFAOLGAFINRTNTVFPHH","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/FMJQSJSFFAOLGAFINRTNTVFPHH.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/FMJQSJSF","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2302.04023&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/FMJQSJSFFAOLGAFINRTNTVFPHH/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/FMJQSJSFFAOLGAFINRTNTVFPHH/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/FMJQSJSFFAOLGAFINRTNTVFPHH/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/FMJQSJSFFAOLGAFINRTNTVFPHH/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/FMJQSJSFFAOLGAFINRTNTVFPHH/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/FMJQSJSFFAOLGAFINRTNTVFPHH/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/FMJQSJSFFAOLGAFINRTNTVFPHH/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-05-17T23:38:13.237163+00:00","updated_at":"2026-05-17T23:38:13.237163+00:00"}