Evaluates multimodal and text-only language models on Brazilian university admission exams (ENEM), specifically probing their ability to comprehend visual information, interpret tables/figures, and perform mathematical reasoning in a multiple-choice format. Use when the user wants to benchmark on ENEM 2022/2023, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill enem-vision-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Enem Vision Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-enem-vision-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: enem-vision-eval
description: Evaluates multimodal and text-only language models on Brazilian university admission exams (ENEM), specifically probing their ability to comprehend visual information, interpret tables/figures, and perform mathematical reasoning in a multiple-choice format. Use when the user wants to benchmark on ENEM 2022/2023, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2311.14169
bibtex_key: pires2023enem
confidence: high
---
# enem-vision-eval
> Evaluating GPT-4's Vision Capabilities on Brazilian University Admission Exams — Pires et al. (2023) (arXiv:2311.14169, 2023)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates multimodal and text-only language models on Brazilian university admission exams (ENEM), specifically probing their ability to comprehend visual information, interpret tables/figures, and perform mathematical reasoning in a multiple-choice format.
## Datasets
- **ENEM 2022/2023** — total ?; splits: test (-1); repo https://github.com/piresramon/gpt-4-enem
## Metrics
- `accuracy` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Percentage of correctly answered multiple-choice questions. Calculated as (number of correct predictions / total number of questions) * 100.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Multiple-choice question text with five options (A–E), optionally accompanied by an image or a human-generated textual caption. Prompts are structured as 3-shot Chain-of-Thought examples.
**Output**: Step-by-step reasoning (Chain-of-Thought) followed by the final selected answer choice.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_accuracy(predictions, gold):
correct = sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, gold) if p.strip().upper() == g.strip().upper())
return (correct / len(gold)) * 100
```
## Common pitfalls
- Failing to replicate the exact 3-shot Chain-of-Thought prompt template, which is critical for model performance.
- Confusing the three experimental conditions (no image, direct image, caption) that isolate different vision-language capabilities.
- Assuming human-generated captions fully preserve the visual information required for complex mathematical or table-based questions.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We performed three experiments to analyze multiple-choice questions: without images, with images, and with captions. Each experiment is described hereafter. 1) Without Images: In this experiment, we analyzed multiple-choice questions excluding any visual elements. ... 2) With Images: For this experiment, we aim to evaluate multimodal LMs by embedding the images directly into the question body. ... 3) With Captions: In this experiment, our focus was on assessing textual LMs by replacing images with textual descriptions containing all essential information necessary for understanding the question.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{pires2023enem,
title={Evaluating GPT-4's Vision Capabilities on Brazilian University Admission Exams},
author={Pires et al. (2023)},
year={2023},
note={arXiv:2311.14169}
}
```
- arXiv: 2311.14169
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!