Evaluates large language models on multi-task understanding across 11 Indic languages, covering 8 domains and 41 subjects. It probes cultural knowledge, region-specific exam data, and multilingual reasoning capabilities. Use when the user wants to benchmark on MILU, 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 milu-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Milu Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-milu-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: milu-eval
description: Evaluates large language models on multi-task understanding across 11 Indic languages, covering 8 domains and 41 subjects. It probes cultural knowledge, region-specific exam data, and multilingual reasoning capabilities. Use when the user wants to benchmark on MILU, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports accuracy.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2411.02538
bibtex_key: verma2024milu
confidence: high
---
# milu-eval
> MILU: A Multi-task Indic Language Understanding Benchmark — Verma et al. (2024) (arXiv:2411.02538, 2024)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates large language models on multi-task understanding across 11 Indic languages, covering 8 domains and 41 subjects. It probes cultural knowledge, region-specific exam data, and multilingual reasoning capabilities.
## Datasets
- **MILU** — total ?; splits: validation (9000); repo https://github.com/AI4Bharat/MILU
## Metrics
- `accuracy` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Proportion of correctly predicted answers. For multiple-choice questions, the answer with the highest conditional log-likelihood is selected. For generative API models, the parsed JSON response is compared against the gold answer.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Question text, optionally preceded by few-shot examples from a validation set. For API models, prompts request structured JSON output.
**Output**: For non-API models: the selected answer string (multiple choice). For API models: a structured JSON object containing the predicted response.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_accuracy(predictions, golds):
correct = 0
for pred, gold in zip(predictions, golds):
# pred is either the argmax log-likelihood answer or parsed JSON string
if pred == gold:
correct += 1
return correct / len(golds)
```
## Common pitfalls
- Log-likelihood scoring for non-API models differs from generative scoring for API models, making direct comparison sensitive to the evaluation setup.
- Few-shot examples are drawn from a separate ~9,000 question validation set, not the test set itself.
- API models are only evaluated in zero-shot due to cost, limiting few-shot analysis for proprietary models.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> For multiple choice questions, given $k$ possible answer strings, we select the answer string $(a_{i})$ with the highest conditional log probability, i.e., $argmax(logP(a_{1}|x),...,logP(a_{k}|x))$. The API-based models are evaluated using the generative approach... explicitly prompt these models to generate the correct response in a structured JSON format. It reveals that open multilingual models outperform language-specific ones, with GPT-4o achieving 74% average accuracy.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{verma2024milu,
title={MILU: A Multi-task Indic Language Understanding Benchmark},
author={Verma et al. (2024)},
year={2024},
note={arXiv:2411.02538}
}
```
- arXiv: 2411.02538
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!