Evaluates language model capabilities across knowledge, reasoning, instruction following, and safety using a standard suite of downstream benchmarks. It measures both pretraining quality and post-adaptation performance on established NLP and coding tasks. Use when the user wants to benchmark on MMLU, HellaSwag, ARC-Challenge, ARC-Easy, PIQA, WinoGrande, GSM8k, BBH, HumanEval, AlpacaEval 1.0, XSTest, IFEval, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports exact-match accuracy.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill standard-llm-benchmarks-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Standard Llm Benchmarks Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-standard-llm-benchmarks-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: standard-llm-benchmarks-eval
description: Evaluates language model capabilities across knowledge, reasoning, instruction following, and safety using a standard suite of downstream benchmarks. It measures both pretraining quality and post-adaptation performance on established NLP and coding tasks. Use when the user wants to benchmark on MMLU, HellaSwag, ARC-Challenge, ARC-Easy, PIQA, WinoGrande, GSM8k, BBH, HumanEval, AlpacaEval 1.0, XSTest, IFEval, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports exact-match accuracy.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2409.02060
bibtex_key: muennighoff2024olmoe
confidence: high
---
# standard-llm-benchmarks-eval
> OLMoE: Open Mixture-of-Experts Language Models — Niklas Muennighoff et al. (2024) (arXiv:2409.02060, 2024)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates language model capabilities across knowledge, reasoning, instruction following, and safety using a standard suite of downstream benchmarks. It measures both pretraining quality and post-adaptation performance on established NLP and coding tasks.
## Datasets
- **MMLU** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **HellaSwag** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **ARC-Challenge** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **ARC-Easy** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **PIQA** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **WinoGrande** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **GSM8k** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **BBH** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **HumanEval** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **AlpacaEval 1.0** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **XSTest** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
- **IFEval** — total ?; splits: test (-1)
## Metrics
- `exact-match accuracy` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- EM. Computed as the fraction of predictions that exactly match the gold answer after standard normalization.
- `Pass@10` — range: [0, 1]
- Fraction of generated code samples (out of 10 attempts) that pass all provided unit tests.
- `win rate` — range: percent
- %win. Percentage of pairwise comparisons where the model's output is preferred over the reference by an LLM judge.
- `F1` — range: [0, 1]
- Harmonic mean of precision and recall computed over token-level matches between prediction and gold.
- `loose accuracy` — range: [0, 1]
- Loose Acc. Fraction of predictions that match the gold answer according to a relaxed regex-based matching rule.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Text prompts containing task instructions, optionally with few-shot examples (0, 3, 5, or 8-shot depending on the benchmark), or direct questions.
**Output**: Model-generated text completion or selected option string.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def score(predictions, golds, metric):
if metric == 'EM':
return sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, golds) if normalize(p) == normalize(g)) / len(golds)
elif metric == 'Pass@10':
return sum(1 for p in predictions[:10] if is_correct(p)) / 10
elif metric == '%win':
return judge_win_rate(predictions, reference_outputs)
elif metric == 'F1':
return compute_f1(predictions, golds)
elif metric == 'Loose Acc':
return sum(1 for p, g in zip(predictions, golds) if regex_match(p, g)) / len(golds)
```
## Common pitfalls
- Varying few-shot settings across tasks (0-shot, 3-shot, 5-shot, 8-shot CoT) require strict prompt formatting to reproduce.
- AlpacaEval uses a reference-free pairwise comparison with an LLM judge, not fixed gold labels, making direct score replication sensitive to the judge model version.
- Loose accuracy for IFEval relies on specific regex patterns that may differ from strict exact-match implementations.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We run all evaluations ourselves with 5 few-shots, see [Appendix C] for details. Metric ($
ightarrow$) | EM | EM | EM | Pass@10 | %win | F1 | Loose Acc
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{muennighoff2024olmoe,
title={OLMoE: Open Mixture-of-Experts Language Models},
author={Niklas Muennighoff et al. (2024)},
year={2024},
note={arXiv:2409.02060}
}
```
- arXiv: 2409.02060
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!