Infinity Instruct Eval

---
name: infinity-instruct-eval
description: Evaluates the conversational and foundational capabilities of LLMs fine-tuned on instruction datasets, comparing them against proprietary and open-source baselines across multiple standard benchmarks. Use when the user wants to benchmark on AlpacaEval 2.0, Arena-Hard, MT-Bench, MATH, GSM-8K, HumanEval, MBPP, MMLU, LUC-EVAL, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Overall*.
metadata:
  skill_kind: dataset_eval
  source_arxiv: 2506.11116
  bibtex_key: [REDACTED]
  confidence: high
---

# infinity-instruct-eval

> Infinity Instruct: Scaling Instruction Selection and Synthesis to Enhance Language Models — Li et al. (2025) (arXiv:2506.11116, 2025)

## What this evaluates

Evaluates the conversational and foundational capabilities of LLMs fine-tuned on instruction datasets, comparing them against proprietary and open-source baselines across multiple standard benchmarks.

## Datasets

- **AlpacaEval 2.0** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **Arena-Hard** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **MT-Bench** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **MATH** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **GSM-8K** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **HumanEval** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **MBPP** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **MMLU** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **LUC-EVAL** — total ?; splits: test (-1)

## Metrics

- `AlpacaEval 2.0` — range: percent
  - Win rate percentage against a reference model (typically GPT-4-turbo) using LLM-as-judge.
- `Arena-Hard` — range: percent
  - Average score from pairwise comparisons judged by LLMs, normalized to 0-100.
- `MT-Bench` — range: percent
  - Average score across multi-turn conversations rated by LLMs, mapped to 0-100 for reporting.
- `MATH` — range: percent
  - Exact-match accuracy on mathematical reasoning problems.
- `GSM-8K` — range: percent
  - Exact-match accuracy on grade-school math word problems.
- `HumanEval` — range: percent
  - Pass@1 accuracy based on unit test execution.
- `MBPP` — range: percent
  - Pass@1 accuracy based on unit test execution for code generation.
- `MMLU` — range: percent
  - Exact-match accuracy on multiple-choice questions across 57 subjects.
- `LUC-EVAL` — range: percent
  - Accuracy on a specialized evaluation suite for foundational capabilities.
- `Overall*` **(primary)** — range: percent
  - Average of normalized scores across all listed benchmarks. MT-Bench scores are explicitly mapped to 0-100 before averaging.

## Input / output format

**Input**: Instruction prompts or conversational turns from evaluation benchmarks.

**Output**: Model-generated text responses.

## Scoring recipe

```python
def compute_metrics(predictions, golds, benchmark):
    if benchmark in ['AlpacaEval 2.0', 'Arena-Hard', 'MT-Bench']:
        score = llm_judge_score(predictions, golds)
    else:
        score = exact_match_or_execution_accuracy(predictions, golds)
    return score

def compute_overall(predictions, golds, benchmarks):
    normalized_scores = []
    for b in benchmarks:
        s = compute_metrics(predictions, golds, b)
        if b == 'MT-Bench':
            s = s * 10  # Map 0-10 to 0-100
        normalized_scores.append(s)
    return sum(normalized_scores) / len(normalized_scores)
```

## Common pitfalls

- MT-Bench scores are originally on a 0-10 scale but must be multiplied by 10 to match the 0-100 scale of other benchmarks in the overall average.
- AlpacaEval 2.0 reports win rates against a specific reference model (usually GPT-4-turbo), so scores are not absolute but relative.
- Arena-Hard and MT-Bench rely on LLM-as-judge evaluations, which can introduce bias depending on the judge model and prompt.

## Evidence (verbatim from paper)

> To calculate the overall average score, we mapped MT-Bench scores to 0-100.

## Citation

```bibtex
@misc{li2025infinityinstruct,
  title={Infinity Instruct: Scaling Instruction Selection and Synthesis to Enhance Language Models},
  author={Li et al. (2025)},
  year={2025},
  note={arXiv:2506.11116}
}
```

- arXiv: 2506.11116