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.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill opt-iml-bench-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls 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 automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-opt-iml-bench-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
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
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!