mmwp-eval
LinguaLIFT: An Effective Two-stage Instruction Tuning Framework for Low-Resource Language Reasoning — Zhang et al. (2024) (arXiv:2412.12499, 2024)
What this evaluates
Evaluates large language models' ability to perform mathematical, commonsense, and natural language inference reasoning in low-, medium-, and high-resource languages. It specifically probes cross-lingual transfer capabilities using a zero-shot chain-of-thought setting without requiring parallel multilingual instruction data.
Datasets
- MMWP — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- MGSM — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- MSVAMP — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- X-CSQA — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- XNLI — total ?; splits: test (-1)
Metrics
accuracy (primary) — range: percent
- The proportion of correctly predicted answers out of the total number of instances, reported as a percentage. Results are aggregated by language resource level (low, medium, high) and averaged across all languages.
Input / output format
Input: Multilingual natural language problem statements (math word problems, commonsense questions, or NLI premises/hypotheses) provided in the target language.
Output: Generated text containing reasoning steps followed by a final answer.
Scoring recipe
def compute_accuracy(predictions, gold_labels):
correct = sum(1 for pred, gold in zip(predictions, gold_labels) if normalize(pred) == normalize(gold))
return (correct / len(gold_labels)) * 100
Common pitfalls
- Results are stratified by language resource level (LR/MR/HR) rather than reported as a single global average, which can obscure performance on specific languages.
- The zero-shot chain-of-thought setting does not provide task-specific prompts or examples, making performance highly sensitive to the model's inherent multilingual reasoning capabilities.
- Baselines like Translate-En and LangBridge use external translation tools or hidden-state replacements, which deviates from the pure zero-shot evaluation setting and complicates direct comparison.
Evidence (verbatim from paper)
We use the MMWP and the latest multilingual benchmarks, MGSM (Shi et al., [2023]) and MSVAMP (Chen et al., [2023]) to evaluate the performance of LLMs in multilingual mathematical reasoning through zero-shot chain-of-thought reasoning (Wei et al., [2022]) setting. Table 1: Results on the MMWP benchmark, where “LR.”, “MR.”, and “HR.” denote mean accuracy for low-, medium-, and high-resource languages, respectively.
Citation
@misc{zhang2024lingualift,
title={LinguaLIFT: An Effective Two-stage Instruction Tuning Framework for Low-Resource Language Reasoning},
author={Zhang et al. (2024)},
year={2024},
note={arXiv:2412.12499}
}
1---2name: mmwp-eval3description: Evaluates large language models' ability to perform mathematical, commonsense, and natural language inference reasoning in low-, medium-, and high-resource languages. It specifically probes cross-lingual transfer capabilities using a zero-shot chain-of-thought setting without requiring parallel multilingual instruction data. Use when the user wants to benchmark on MMWP, MGSM, MSVAMP, X-CSQA, XNLI, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.4---56# mmwp-eval78> LinguaLIFT: An Effective Two-stage Instruction Tuning Framework for Low-Resource Language Reasoning — Zhang et al. (2024) (arXiv:2412.12499, 2024)910## What this evaluates1112Evaluates large language models' ability to perform mathematical, commonsense, and natural language inference reasoning in low-, medium-, and high-resource languages. It specifically probes cross-lingual transfer capabilities using a zero-shot chain-of-thought setting without requiring parallel multilingual instruction data.1314## Datasets1516- **MMWP** — total ?; splits: test (-1)17- **MGSM** — total ?; splits: test (-1)18- **MSVAMP** — total ?; splits: test (-1)19- **X-CSQA** — total ?; splits: test (-1)20- **XNLI** — total ?; splits: test (-1)2122## Metrics2324- `accuracy` **(primary)** — range: percent25 - The proportion of correctly predicted answers out of the total number of instances, reported as a percentage. Results are aggregated by language resource level (low, medium, high) and averaged across all languages.2627## Input / output format2829**Input**: Multilingual natural language problem statements (math word problems, commonsense questions, or NLI premises/hypotheses) provided in the target language.3031**Output**: Generated text containing reasoning steps followed by a final answer.3233## Scoring recipe3435```python36def compute_accuracy(predictions, gold_labels):37 correct = sum(1 for pred, gold in zip(predictions, gold_labels) if normalize(pred) == normalize(gold))38 return (correct / len(gold_labels)) * 10039```4041## Common pitfalls4243- Results are stratified by language resource level (LR/MR/HR) rather than reported as a single global average, which can obscure performance on specific languages.44- The zero-shot chain-of-thought setting does not provide task-specific prompts or examples, making performance highly sensitive to the model's inherent multilingual reasoning capabilities.45- Baselines like Translate-En and LangBridge use external translation tools or hidden-state replacements, which deviates from the pure zero-shot evaluation setting and complicates direct comparison.4647## Evidence (verbatim from paper)4849> We use the MMWP and the latest multilingual benchmarks, MGSM (Shi et al., [2023]) and MSVAMP (Chen et al., [2023]) to evaluate the performance of LLMs in multilingual mathematical reasoning through zero-shot chain-of-thought reasoning (Wei et al., [2022]) setting. Table 1: Results on the MMWP benchmark, where “LR.”, “MR.”, and “HR.” denote mean accuracy for low-, medium-, and high-resource languages, respectively.5051## Citation5253```bibtex54@misc{zhang2024lingualift,55 title={LinguaLIFT: An Effective Two-stage Instruction Tuning Framework for Low-Resource Language Reasoning},56 author={Zhang et al. (2024)},57 year={2024},58 note={arXiv:2412.12499}59}60```6162- arXiv: 2412.12499