Putting GPT-4o to the Sword: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Language, Vision, Speech, and Multimodal Proficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, evaluating their comprehensive capabilities becomes significant for their application in various fields. This research study comprehensively evaluates the language, vision, speech, and multimodal capabilities of GPT-4o. The study employs standardized exam questions, reasoning tasks, and translation assessments to assess the model's language capability. Additionally, GPT-4o's vision and speech capabilities are tested through image classification and object recognition tasks, as well as accent classification. The multimodal evaluation assesses the model's performance in integrating visual and linguistic data. Our findings reveal that GPT-4o demonstrates high accuracy and efficiency across multiple domains in language and reasoning capabilities, excelling in tasks that require few-shot learning. GPT-4o also provides notable improvements in multimodal tasks compared to its predecessors. However, the model shows variability and faces limitations in handling complex and ambiguous inputs, particularly in audio and vision capabilities. This paper highlights the need for more comprehensive benchmarks and robust evaluation frameworks, encompassing qualitative assessments involving human judgment as well as error analysis. Future work should focus on expanding datasets, investigating prompt-based assessment, and enhancing few-shot learning techniques to test the model's practical applicability and performance in real-world scenarios.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".