Understanding domain-specific theorems often requires more than just text-based reasoning; effective communication through structured visual explanations is crucial for deeper comprehension. While large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong performance in text-based theorem reasoning, their ability to generate coherent and pedagogically meaningful visual explanations remains an open challenge. In this work, we introduce TheoremExplainAgent, an agentic approach for generating long-form theorem explanation videos (over 5 minutes) using Manim animations. To systematically evaluate multimodal theorem explanations, we propose TheoremExplainBench, a benchmark covering 240 theorems across multiple STEM disciplines, along with 5 automated evaluation metrics. Our results reveal that agentic planning is essential for generating detailed long-form videos, and the o3-mini agent achieves a success rate of 93.8% and an overall score of 0.77. However, our quantitative and qualitative studies show that most of the videos produced exhibit minor issues with visual element layout. Furthermore, multimodal explanations expose deeper reasoning flaws that text-based explanations fail to reveal, highlighting the importance of multimodal explanations.

In the rapidly advancing field of conditional image generation research, challenges such as limited explainability lie in effectively evaluating the performance and capabilities of various models.This paper introduces VIESCORE, a Visual Instruction-guided Explainable metric for evaluating any conditional image generation tasks.VIESCORE leverages general knowledge from Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) as the backbone and does not require training or fine-tuning.We evaluate VIESCORE on seven prominent tasks in conditional image tasks and found: (1) VIESCORE (GPT4-o) achieves a high Spearman correlation of 0.4 with human evaluations, while the human-to-human correlation is 0.45.(2) VI-ESCORE (with open-source MLLM) is significantly weaker than GPT-4o and GPT-4v in evaluating synthetic images.(3) VIESCORE achieves a correlation on par with human ratings in the generation tasks but struggles in editing tasks.With these results, we believe VIESCORE shows its great potential to replace human judges in evaluating image synthesis tasks.

Xuan He, Dongfu Jiang, Ge Zhang, Max Ku, Achint Soni, Sherman Siu, Haonan Chen, Abhranil Chandra, Ziyan Jiang, Aaran Arulraj, Kai Wang, Quy Duc Do, Yuansheng Ni, Bohan Lyu, Yaswanth Narsupalli, Rongqi Fan, Zhiheng Lyu, Bill Yuchen Lin, Wenhu Chen. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2024.

Recently, a myriad of conditional image generation and editing models have been developed to serve different downstream tasks, including text-to-image generation, text-guided image editing, subject-driven image generation, control-guided image generation, etc. However, we observe huge inconsistencies in experimental conditions: datasets, inference, and evaluation metrics -- render fair comparisons difficult. This paper proposes ImagenHub, which is a one-stop library to standardize the inference and evaluation of all the conditional image generation models. Firstly, we define seven prominent tasks and curate high-quality evaluation datasets for them. Secondly, we built a unified inference pipeline to ensure fair comparison. Thirdly, we design two human evaluation scores, i.e. Semantic Consistency and Perceptual Quality, along with comprehensive guidelines to evaluate generated images. We train expert raters to evaluate the model outputs based on the proposed metrics. Our human evaluation achieves a high inter-worker agreement of Krippendorff’s alpha on 76\% models with a value higher than 0.4. We comprehensively evaluated a total of around 30 models and observed three key takeaways: (1) the existing models’ performance is generally unsatisfying except for Text-guided Image Generation and Subject-driven Image Generation, with 74\% models achieving an overall score lower than 0.5. (2) we examined the claims from published papers and found 83\% of them hold with a few exceptions. (3) None of the existing automatic metrics has a Spearman's correlation higher than 0.2 except subject-driven image generation. Moving forward, we will continue our efforts to evaluate newly published models and update our leaderboard to keep track of the progress in conditional image generation.

Generative AI has made remarkable strides to revolutionize fields such as image and video generation. These advancements are driven by innovative algorithms, architecture, and data. However, the rapid proliferation of generative models has highlighted a critical gap: the absence of trustworthy evaluation metrics. Current automatic assessments such as FID, CLIP, FVD, etc often fail to capture the nuanced quality and user satisfaction associated with generative outputs. This paper proposes an open platform GenAI-Arena to evaluate different image and video generative models, where users can actively participate in evaluating these models. By leveraging collective user feedback and votes, GenAI-Arena aims to provide a more democratic and accurate measure of model performance. It covers three tasks of text-to-image generation, text-to-video generation, and image editing respectively. Currently, we cover a total of 35 open-source generative models. GenAI-Arena has been operating for seven months, amassing over 9000 votes from the community. We describe our platform, analyze the data, and explain the statistical methods for ranking the models. To further promote the research in building model-based evaluation metrics, we release a cleaned version of our preference data for the three tasks, namely GenAI-Bench. We prompt the existing multi-modal models like Gemini, and GPT-4o to mimic human voting. We compute the accuracy by comparing the model voting with the human voting to understand their judging abilities. Our results show existing multimodal models are still lagging in assessing the generated visual content, even the best model GPT-4o only achieves an average accuracy of $49.19\%$ across the three generative tasks. Open-source MLLMs perform even worse due to the lack of instruction-following and reasoning ability in complex vision scenarios.

In the age of large-scale language models, benchmarks like the Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) have been pivotal in pushing the boundaries of what AI can achieve in language comprehension and reasoning across diverse domains. However, as models continue to improve, their performance on these benchmarks has begun to plateau, making it increasingly difficult to discern differences in model capabilities. This paper introduces MMLU-Pro, an enhanced dataset designed to extend the mostly knowledge-driven MMLU benchmark by integrating more challenging, reasoning-focused questions and expanding the choice set from four to ten options. Additionally, MMLU-Pro eliminates part of the trivial and noisy questions in MMLU. Our experimental results show that MMLU-Pro not only raises the challenge, causing a significant drop in accuracy by 16\% to 33\% compared to MMLU, but also demonstrates greater stability under varying prompts. With 24 different prompt styles tested, the sensitivity of model scores to prompt variations decreased from 4-5\% in MMLU to just 2\% in MMLU-Pro. Additionally, we found that models utilizing Chain of Thought (CoT) reasoning achieved better performance on MMLU-Pro compared to direct answering, which is in stark contrast to the findings on the original MMLU, indicating that MMLU-Pro includes more complex reasoning questions. Our assessments confirm that MMLU-Pro is more discriminative benchmark to better track progress in the field.

The recent LLMs like GPT-4 and PaLM-2 have made tremendous progress in solving fundamental math problems like GSM8K by achieving over 90% accuracy.However, their capabilities to solve more challenging math problems which require domain-specific knowledge (i.e.theorem) have yet to be investigated.In this paper, we introduce TheoremQA, the first theorem-driven question-answering dataset designed to evaluate AI models' capabilities to apply theorems to solve challenging science problems.TheoremQA is curated by domain experts containing 800 high-quality questions covering 350 theorems 1 from Math, Physics, EE&CS, and Finance.We evaluate a wide spectrum of 16 large language and code models with different prompting strategies like Chain-of-Thoughts and Program-of-Thoughts.We found that GPT-4's capabilities to solve these problems are unparalleled, achieving an accuracy of 51% with Program-of-Thoughts Prompting.All the existing open-sourced models are below 15%, barely surpassing the random-guess baseline.Given the diversity and broad coverage of TheoremQA, we believe it can be used as a better benchmark to evaluate LLMs' capabilities to solve challenging science problems.