Evaluates instruction-tuned language models on generalization across 1,991 NLP tasks spanning 100+ categories. It probes zero-shot and few-shot (5-shot) performance on held-out categories, unseen tasks within seen categories, and fully supervised tasks, measuring both generation quality and classification accuracy. Use when the user wants to benchmark on OPT-IML Bench, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Rouge-L.
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Opt Iml Bench Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-opt-iml-bench-eval)
---
name: opt-iml-bench-eval
description: Evaluates instruction-tuned language models on generalization across 1,991 NLP tasks spanning 100+ categories. It probes zero-shot and few-shot (5-shot) performance on held-out categories, unseen tasks within seen categories, and fully supervised tasks, measuring both generation quality and classification accuracy. Use when the user wants to benchmark on OPT-IML Bench, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports Rouge-L.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2212.12017
bibtex_key: iyer2022optiml
confidence: high
---
# opt-iml-bench-eval
> OPT-IML: Scaling Language Model Instruction Meta Learning through the Lens of Generalization — Iyer et al. (2022) (arXiv:2212.12017, 2022)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates instruction-tuned language models on generalization across 1,991 NLP tasks spanning 100+ categories. It probes zero-shot and few-shot (5-shot) performance on held-out categories, unseen tasks within seen categories, and fully supervised tasks, measuring both generation quality and classification accuracy.
## Datasets
- **OPT-IML Bench** — total 1991; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `Rouge-L` **(primary)** — range: [0, 100] | percent
- Longest common subsequence overlap between the model's generated text and the reference answer, reported as a percentage.
- `Accuracy` — range: [0, 100] | percent
- Percentage of predictions that exactly match the gold label or answer.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Instruction prompt with 0 or 5 demonstration examples (task-specific format).
**Output**: Free-form text generation or classification label.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_metrics(predictions, golds, metric_type):
if metric_type == 'accuracy':
return sum(p == g for p, g in zip(predictions, golds)) / len(golds) * 100
elif metric_type == 'rouge-l':
scores = [rouge_l_score(p, g) * 100 for p, g in zip(predictions, golds)]
return sum(scores) / len(scores)
return None
```
## Common pitfalls
- Results are reported in 0-shot/5-shot format; summarization tasks only report 0-shot performance.
- Averages across task categories mix Rouge-L and accuracy scores, which are on different scales and should not be directly compared without normalization.
- Some evaluation tables use 32-shot instead of 5-shot (e.g., Table 16), so shot counts must be verified per table.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Most tasks are generation tasks, for which we report Rouge-L. We report accuracy for MMLU. Some tasks in the Cause Effect Cluster also use accuracy, which is averaged with Rouge-L for presentation purposes.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{iyer2022optiml,
title={OPT-IML: Scaling Language Model Instruction Meta Learning through the Lens of Generalization},
author={Iyer et al. (2022)},
year={2022},
note={arXiv:2212.12017}
}
```
- arXiv: 2212.12017