Skip to content
Back to skills

Pearl Eval

ASecurity

Evaluates large vision-language models' ability to understand and generate culturally-aware Arabic content across multiple reasoning-centric question types. It probes hypothesis formation, comparative analysis, chronological reasoning, and explicit cultural grounding in both closed-form and open-ended multimodal tasks. Use when the user wants to benchmark on PeARL, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports relaxed-match accuracy (ACC).

  • 3 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 2 views
  • Added September 11, 2026
researchpythongogit

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned September 11, 2026

npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill pearl-eval --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Pearl Eval?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Pearl Eval
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/qhjqhj00-pearl-eval/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-pearl-eval)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: pearl-eval
description: Evaluates large vision-language models' ability to understand and generate culturally-aware Arabic content across multiple reasoning-centric question types. It probes hypothesis formation, comparative analysis, chronological reasoning, and explicit cultural grounding in both closed-form and open-ended multimodal tasks. Use when the user wants to benchmark on PeARL, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports relaxed-match accuracy (ACC).
metadata:
  skill_kind: dataset_eval
  source_arxiv: 2505.21979
  bibtex_key: [REDACTED]
  confidence: high
---

# pearl-eval

> Pearl: A Multimodal Culturally-Aware Arabic Instruction Dataset — Alwajih et al. (2025) (arXiv:2505.21979, 2025)

## What this evaluates

Evaluates large vision-language models' ability to understand and generate culturally-aware Arabic content across multiple reasoning-centric question types. It probes hypothesis formation, comparative analysis, chronological reasoning, and explicit cultural grounding in both closed-form and open-ended multimodal tasks.

## Datasets

- **PeARL** — total ?; splits: test (-1); repo https://github.com/UBC-NLP/pearl

## Metrics

- `relaxed-match accuracy (ACC)` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
  - Binary score (1 if semantically equivalent to gold, 0 otherwise) averaged over closed-form questions. Permits synonyms, paraphrases, or minor lexical variations.
- `Overall Score` — range: [0.2, 5.0]
  - Weighted sum of four dimensions scored 1-5: 0.4*Correctness + 0.2*Coherence + 0.2*Detail + 0.2*Fluency.
- `Cultural Awareness Score (CAS)` — range: [0, 1]
  - Binary metric (0/1) indicating explicitly whether the candidate response mentions culturally-specific elements required by the reference answer.

## Input / output format

**Input**: Multimodal prompts containing images and Arabic text questions, varying between closed-form (multiple-choice, True/False) and open-ended types (cause-and-effect, comparative analysis, scenario completion, etc.).

**Output**: Model-generated Arabic text responses. For closed-form, a direct answer; for open-ended, a free-form explanation or completion.

## Scoring recipe

```python
def score_closed(pred, gold):
    return 1 if is_semantically_equivalent(pred, gold) else 0

def score_open(pred, gold):
    c = judge_score(pred, gold, 'correctness')
    coh = judge_score(pred, gold, 'coherence')
    d = judge_score(pred, gold, 'detail')
    f = judge_score(pred, gold, 'fluency')
    return 0.4*c + 0.2*coh + 0.2*d + 0.2*f

def score_cas(pred, gold):
    return 1 if mentions_cultural_elements(pred, gold) else 0
```

## Common pitfalls

- The LVLM judge's scoring may be biased by its own training data or cultural background, despite being instruction-tuned for Arabic.
- Relaxed-match accuracy relies on semantic equivalence judgments which can vary between judges or models, potentially inflating scores for paraphrased but factually incorrect answers.
- The weighted Overall Score heavily emphasizes correctness (0.4), which might overshadow coherence or fluency in open-ended evaluations.

## Evidence (verbatim from paper)

> For closed-form questions (e.g., multiple-choice and True/False), we utilize a relaxed-match accuracy (ACC) metric. Here, the judge assesses semantic equivalence between candidate responses and gold-standard answers, permitting synonyms, paraphrases, or minor lexical variations. Each response is assigned a binary correctness score (1 for correct, 0 for incorrect), aggregated into an overall accuracy. For open-ended questions... the judge evaluates responses using a comprehensive structured rubric capturing four critical dimensions: correctness, coherence, detail, and fluency. Each dimension is scored individually on a scale from 1 to 5, with an aggregated, weighted Overall Score calculated as follows: Overall Score = 0.4 Correctness + 0.2 Coherence + 0.2 Detail + 0.2 Fluency. We also follow Burda-Lassen et al. (2025) in employing a Cultural Awareness Score (CAS). CAS is a binary metric (0/1) indicating explicitly whether the candidate response mentions culturally-specific elements required by the reference answer...

## Citation

```bibtex
@misc{alwajih2025pearl,
  title={Pearl: A Multimodal Culturally-Aware Arabic Instruction Dataset},
  author={Alwajih et al. (2025)},
  year={2025},
  note={arXiv:2505.21979}
}
```

- arXiv: 2505.21979

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.