Evaluates the instruction-following capability and alignment (helpfulness, honesty, harmlessness) of instruction-tuned LLMs on unseen tasks across English and Chinese. Use when the user wants to benchmark on User-Oriented-Instructions-252, Vicuna-Instructions-80, Unnatural Instructions, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Relative Score (GPT-4).
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill instruction-tuning-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Instruction Tuning Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-instruction-tuning-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: instruction-tuning-eval
description: Evaluates the instruction-following capability and alignment (helpfulness, honesty, harmlessness) of instruction-tuned LLMs on unseen tasks across English and Chinese. Use when the user wants to benchmark on User-Oriented-Instructions-252, Vicuna-Instructions-80, Unnatural Instructions, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Relative Score (GPT-4).
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2304.03277
bibtex_key: peng2023instructiontuning
confidence: high
---
# instruction-tuning-eval
> Instruction Tuning with GPT-4 — Peng et al. (2023) (arXiv:2304.03277, 2023)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates the instruction-following capability and alignment (helpfulness, honesty, harmlessness) of instruction-tuned LLMs on unseen tasks across English and Chinese.
## Datasets
- **User-Oriented-Instructions-252** — total 252; splits: test (252)
- **Vicuna-Instructions-80** — total 80; splits: test (80)
- **Unnatural Instructions** — total 68478; splits: test (68478)
## Metrics
- `Relative Score (GPT-4)` **(primary)** — range: percent
- Pairwise comparison rated 1-10 by GPT-4. Relative score = (sum of scores for model A) / (sum of scores for model A + sum of scores for model B) * 100%.
- `HHH Human Vote %` — range: percent
- Human annotators on MTurk vote on three criteria: Helpfulness, Honesty, Harmlessness. Reported as percentage of votes for win, tie, or lose against a baseline.
- `ROUGE-L` — range: [0, 1]
- Standard ROUGE-L score averaged over 9,000 samples from Unnatural Instructions, grouped by ground-truth response length.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Instruction prompt (text) provided to the model.
**Output**: Text response generated by the model.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_relative_score(preds_A, preds_B, prompts):
scores_A, scores_B = [], []
for p, a, b in zip(prompts, preds_A, preds_B):
scores_A.append(gpt4_pairwise_score(a, b))
scores_B.append(gpt4_pairwise_score(b, a))
return sum(scores_A) / (sum(scores_A) + sum(scores_B)) * 100
```
## Common pitfalls
- The GPT-4 automatic evaluation uses pairwise comparisons against a specific opponent (ChatGPT or GPT-4), so scores are relative, not absolute.
- Human evaluation only covers the 252-user-oriented instructions, not the full Vicuna or Unnatural Instructions sets.
- ROUGE-L is computed on a 9K subset of Unnatural Instructions, not the full 68K.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We compare LLaMA-GPT4 with GPT-4 and Alpaca unnatural instructions in Figure 6. In terms of the average ROUGE-L scores, Alpaca outperforms the other two models.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{peng2023instructiontuning,
title={Instruction Tuning with GPT-4},
author={Peng et al. (2023)},
year={2023},
note={arXiv:2304.03277}
}
```
- arXiv: 2304.03277
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!