evaluation-lm-evaluation-harness
Evaluates LLMs across 60+ academic benchmarks (MMLU, HumanEval, GSM8K, TruthfulQA, HellaSwag). Use when benchmarking model quality, comparing models, reporting academic results, or tracking training progress. Industry standard used by EleutherAI, HuggingFace, and major labs. Supports HuggingFace, vLLM, APIs.
- License 许可
- MIT
- 最近更新
- 2026-11-14
- Stars
- ★ 3.3w
- Forks
- 3.9k
01 前言 Front Matter
- name
- evaluation-lm-evaluation-harness
- license
- MIT
- metadata
- { "tags": [ "Evaluation", "LM Evaluation Harness", "Benchmarking", "MMLU", "HumanEval", "GSM8K", "EleutherAI", "Model Quality", "Academic Benchmarks", "Industry Standard" ], "author": "Orchestra Research", "version": "1.0.0", "dependencies": [ "lm-eval", "transformers", "vllm" ] }
- description
- Evaluates LLMs across 60+ academic benchmarks (MMLU, HumanEval, GSM8K, TruthfulQA, HellaSwag). Use when benchmarking model quality, comparing models, reporting academic results, or tracking training progress. Industry standard used by EleutherAI, HuggingFace, and major labs. Supports HuggingFace, vLLM, APIs.
02 资源文件 10
- 参考文档agents/agent.yaml31 B
- 参考文档references/api-evaluation.md10.9 KB
- 参考文档references/benchmark-guide.md10.5 KB
- 参考文档references/custom-tasks.md12.8 KB
- 参考文档references/distributed-eval.md11.2 KB
- 参考文档references/guide.md77 B
- 脚本scripts/check.py35 B
- 参考文档skill.yaml155 B
- 参考文档tools/tool.yaml30 B
- 脚本validation/validate.py44 B
03 SKILL.md 正文
lm-evaluation-harness - LLM Benchmarking
Quick start
lm-evaluation-harness evaluates LLMs across 60+ academic benchmarks using standardized prompts and metrics.
Installation:
pip install lm-eval
Evaluate any HuggingFace model:
lm_eval --model hf \
--model_args pretrained=meta-llama/Llama-2-7b-hf \
--tasks mmlu,gsm8k,hellaswag \
--device cuda:0 \
--batch_size 8
View available tasks:
lm_eval --tasks list
Common workflows
Workflow 1: Standard benchmark evaluation
Evaluate model on core benchmarks (MMLU, GSM8K, HumanEval).
Copy this checklist:
Benchmark Evaluation:
- [ ] Step 1: Choose benchmark suite
- [ ] Step 2: Configure model
- [ ] Step 3: Run evaluation
- [ ] Step 4: Analyze results
Step 1: Choose benchmark suite
Core reasoning benchmarks:
- MMLU (Massive Multitask Language Understanding) - 57 subjects, multiple choice
- GSM8K - Grade school math word problems
- HellaSwag - Common sense reasoning
- TruthfulQA - Truthfulness and factuality
- ARC (AI2 Reasoning Challenge) - Science questions
Code benchmarks:
- HumanEval - Python code generation (164 problems)
- MBPP (Mostly Basic Python Problems) - Python coding
Standard suite (recommended for model releases):
--tasks mmlu,gsm8k,hellaswag,truthfulqa,arc_challenge
Step 2: Configure model
HuggingFace model:
lm_eval --model hf \
--model_args pretrained=meta-llama/Llama-2-7b-hf,dtype=bfloat16 \
--tasks mmlu \
--device cuda:0 \
--batch_size auto # Auto-detect optimal batch size
Quantized model (4-bit/8-bit):
lm_eval --model hf \
--model_args pretrained=meta-llama/Llama-2-7b-hf,load_in_4bit=True \
--tasks mmlu \
--device cuda:0
Custom checkpoint:
lm_eval --model hf \
--model_args pretrained=/path/to/my-model,tokenizer=/path/to/tokenizer \
--tasks mmlu \
--device cuda:0
Step 3: Run evaluation
# Full MMLU evaluation (57 subjects)
lm_eval --model hf \
--model_args pretrained=meta-llama/Llama-2-7b-hf \
--tasks mmlu \
--num_fewshot 5 \ # 5-shot evaluation (standard)
--batch_size 8 \
--output_path results/ \
--log_samples # Save individual predictions
# Multiple benchmarks at once
lm_eval --model hf \
--model_args pretrained=meta-llama/Llama-2-7b-hf \
--tasks mmlu,gsm8k,hellaswag,truthfulqa,arc_challenge \
--num_fewshot 5 \
--batch_size 8 \
--output_path results/llama2-7b-eval.json
Step 4: Analyze results
Results saved to results/llama2-7b-eval.json:
{
"results": {
"mmlu": {
"acc": 0.459,
"acc_stderr": 0.004
},
"gsm8k": {
"exact_match": 0.142,
"exact_match_stderr": 0.006
},
"hellaswag": {
"acc_norm": 0.765,
"acc_norm_stderr": 0.004
}
},
"config": {
"model": "hf",
"model_args": "pretrained=meta-llama/Llama-2-7b-hf",
"num_fewshot": 5
}
}
Workflow 2: Track training progress
Evaluate checkpoints during training.
Training Progress Tracking:
- [ ] Step 1: Set up periodic evaluation
- [ ] Step 2: Choose quick benchmarks
- [ ] Step 3: Automate evaluation
- [ ] Step 4: Plot learning curves
Step 1: Set up periodic evaluation
Evaluate every N training steps:
#!/bin/bash
# eval_checkpoint.sh
CHECKPOINT_DIR=$1
STEP=$2
lm_eval --model hf \
--model_args pretrained=$CHECKPOINT_DIR/checkpoint-$STEP \
--tasks gsm8k,hellaswag \
--num_fewshot 0 \ # 0-shot for speed
--batch_size 16 \
--output_path results/step-$STEP.json
Step 2: Choose quick benchmarks
Fast benchmarks for frequent evaluation:
- HellaSwag: ~10 minutes on 1 GPU
- GSM8K: ~5 minutes
- PIQA: ~2 minutes
Avoid for frequent eval (too slow):
- MMLU: ~2 hours (57 subjects)
- HumanEval: Requires code execution
Step 3: Automate evaluation
Integrate with training script:
# In training loop
if step % eval_interval == 0:
model.save_pretrained(f"checkpoints/step-{step}")
# Run evaluation
os.system(f"./eval_checkpoint.sh checkpoints step-{step}")
Or use PyTorch Lightning callbacks:
from pytorch_lightning import Callback
class EvalHarnessCallback(Callback):
def on_validation_epoch_end(self, trainer, pl_module):
step = trainer.global_step
checkpoint_path = f"checkpoints/step-{step}"
# Save checkpoint
trainer.save_checkpoint(checkpoint_path)
# Run lm-eval
os.system(f"lm_eval --model hf --model_args pretrained={checkpoint_path} ...")
Step 4: Plot learning curves
import json
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
# Load all results
steps = []
mmlu_scores = []
for file in sorted(glob.glob("results/step-*.json")):
with open(file) as f:
data = json.load(f)
step = int(file.split("-")[1].split(".")[0])
steps.append(step)
mmlu_scores.append(data["results"]["mmlu"]["acc"])
# Plot
plt.plot(steps, mmlu_scores)
plt.xlabel("Training Step")
plt.ylabel("MMLU Accuracy")
plt.title("Training Progress")
plt.savefig("training_curve.png")
Workflow 3: Compare multiple models
Benchmark suite for model comparison.
Model Comparison:
- [ ] Step 1: Define model list
- [ ] Step 2: Run evaluations
- [ ] Step 3: Generate comparison table
Step 1: Define model list
# models.txt
meta-llama/Llama-2-7b-hf
meta-llama/Llama-2-13b-hf
mistralai/Mistral-7B-v0.1
microsoft/phi-2
Step 2: Run evaluations
#!/bin/bash
# eval_all_models.sh
TASKS="mmlu,gsm8k,hellaswag,truthfulqa"
while read model; do
echo "Evaluating $model"
# Extract model name for output file
model_name=$(echo $model | sed 's/\//-/g')
lm_eval --model hf \
--model_args pretrained=$model,dtype=bfloat16 \
--tasks $TASKS \
--num_fewshot 5 \
--batch_size auto \
--output_path results/$model_name.json
done < models.txt
Step 3: Generate comparison table
import json
import pandas as pd
models = [
"meta-llama-Llama-2-7b-hf",
"meta-llama-Llama-2-13b-hf",
"mistralai-Mistral-7B-v0.1",
"microsoft-phi-2"
]
tasks = ["mmlu", "gsm8k", "hellaswag", "truthfulqa"]
results = []
for model in models:
with open(f"results/{model}.json") as f:
data = json.load(f)
row = {"Model": model.replace("-", "/")}
for task in tasks:
# Get primary metric for each task
metrics = data["results"][task]
if "acc" in metrics:
row[task.upper()] = f"{metrics['acc']:.3f}"
elif "exact_match" in metrics:
row[task.upper()] = f"{metrics['exact_match']:.3f}"
results.append(row)
df = pd.DataFrame(results)
print(df.to_markdown(index=False))
Output:
| Model | MMLU | GSM8K | HELLASWAG | TRUTHFULQA |
|------------------------|-------|-------|-----------|------------|
| meta-llama/Llama-2-7b | 0.459 | 0.142 | 0.765 | 0.391 |
| meta-llama/Llama-2-13b | 0.549 | 0.287 | 0.801 | 0.430 |
| mistralai/Mistral-7B | 0.626 | 0.395 | 0.812 | 0.428 |
| microsoft/phi-2 | 0.560 | 0.613 | 0.682 | 0.447 |
Workflow 4: Evaluate with vLLM (faster inference)
Use vLLM backend for 5-10x faster evaluation.
vLLM Evaluation:
- [ ] Step 1: Install vLLM
- [ ] Step 2: Configure vLLM backend
- [ ] Step 3: Run evaluation
Step 1: Install vLLM
pip install vllm
Step 2: Configure vLLM backend
lm_eval --model vllm \
--model_args pretrained=meta-llama/Llama-2-7b-hf,tensor_parallel_size=1,dtype=auto,gpu_memory_utilization=0.8 \
--tasks mmlu \
--batch_size auto
Step 3: Run evaluation
vLLM is 5-10× faster than standard HuggingFace:
# Standard HF: ~2 hours for MMLU on 7B model
lm_eval --model hf \
--model_args pretrained=meta-llama/Llama-2-7b-hf \
--tasks mmlu \
--batch_size 8
# vLLM: ~15-20 minutes for MMLU on 7B model
lm_eval --model vllm \
--model_args pretrained=meta-llama/Llama-2-7b-hf,tensor_parallel_size=2 \
--tasks mmlu \
--batch_size auto
When to use vs alternatives
Use lm-evaluation-harness when:
- Benchmarking models for academic papers
- Comparing model quality across standard tasks
- Tracking training progress
- Reporting standardized metrics (everyone uses same prompts)
- Need reproducible evaluation
Use alternatives instead:
- HELM (Stanford): Broader evaluation (fairness, efficiency, calibration)
- AlpacaEval: Instruction-following evaluation with LLM judges
- MT-Bench: Conversational multi-turn evaluation
- Custom scripts: Domain-specific evaluation
Common issues
Issue: Evaluation too slow
Use vLLM backend:
lm_eval --model vllm \
--model_args pretrained=model-name,tensor_parallel_size=2
Or reduce fewshot examples:
--num_fewshot 0 # Instead of 5
Or evaluate subset of MMLU:
--tasks mmlu_stem # Only STEM subjects
Issue: Out of memory
Reduce batch size:
--batch_size 1 # Or --batch_size auto
Use quantization:
--model_args pretrained=model-name,load_in_8bit=True
Enable CPU offloading:
--model_args pretrained=model-name,device_map=auto,offload_folder=offload
Issue: Different results than reported
Check fewshot count:
--num_fewshot 5 # Most papers use 5-shot
Check exact task name:
--tasks mmlu # Not mmlu_direct or mmlu_fewshot
Verify model and tokenizer match:
--model_args pretrained=model-name,tokenizer=same-model-name
Issue: HumanEval not executing code
Install execution dependencies:
pip install human-eval
Enable code execution:
lm_eval --model hf \
--model_args pretrained=model-name \
--tasks humaneval \
--allow_code_execution # Required for HumanEval
Advanced topics
Benchmark descriptions: See references/benchmark-guide.md for detailed description of all 60+ tasks, what they measure, and interpretation.
Custom tasks: See references/custom-tasks.md for creating domain-specific evaluation tasks.
API evaluation: See references/api-evaluation.md for evaluating OpenAI, Anthropic, and other API models.
Multi-GPU strategies: See references/distributed-eval.md for data parallel and tensor parallel evaluation.
Hardware requirements
- GPU: NVIDIA (CUDA 11.8+), works on CPU (very slow)
- VRAM:
- 7B model: 16GB (bf16) or 8GB (8-bit)
- 13B model: 28GB (bf16) or 14GB (8-bit)
- 70B model: Requires multi-GPU or quantization
- Time (7B model, single A100):
- HellaSwag: 10 minutes
- GSM8K: 5 minutes
- MMLU (full): 2 hours
- HumanEval: 20 minutes
Resources
- GitHub: https://github.com/EleutherAI/lm-evaluation-harness
- Docs: https://github.com/EleutherAI/lm-evaluation-harness/tree/main/docs
- Task library: 60+ tasks including MMLU, GSM8K, HumanEval, TruthfulQA, HellaSwag, ARC, WinoGrande, etc.
- Leaderboard: https://huggingface.co/spaces/HuggingFaceH4/open_llm_leaderboard (uses this harness)
04 同仓库更多 Skills
wealthville-pool-scoring
Score DeFi liquidity pools before providing liquidity. Returns a 0-100 pool score and an Enter/Hold/Exit/Reduce/Avoid verdict with calibrated confidence for ~68,800 Solana pools and 575 EVM pools, plus a public miss-inclusive track record. Use when asked whether a pool is worth LPing into, which pools look best right now, or how accurate the scores have actually been.
technical-debt-auditor
Scans a codebase and produces a quantified technical debt report with a prioritized remediation plan. Analyzes dead code, TODO/FIXME/HACK markers, dependency staleness, complexity hotspots, code duplication signals, test coverage gaps, unused exports, and outdated patterns. Use this skill when the user asks to audit their codebase for tech debt, wants a health check of their code quality, says things like "where should I focus refactoring", "find code smells", "audit my codebase", "what technical debt do we have", "prioritize cleanup work", or asks about code quality metrics. Also trigger when the user mentions "code rot", "legacy cleanup", "refactoring priorities", or wants to understand the overall health of a project before a major effort. Trigger even if the user doesn't say "technical debt" explicitly — any request to systematically assess code quality and identify improvement priorities belongs here.
readonly-sql-guard
Make an agent's database access provably read-only. Use when an agent runs caller-supplied SQL against a production/ERP/analytics database (a "query" MCP tool, text-to-SQL, an admin console), or when reviewing DB-access code for write/DDL/side-effect/transaction-escape risks. Checks what a statement CALLS, not just its shape.
web-artifacts-builder
Suite of tools for creating elaborate, multi-component claude.ai HTML artifacts using modern frontend web technologies (React, Tailwind CSS, shadcn/ui). Use for complex artifacts requiring state management, routing, or shadcn/ui components - not for simple single-file HTML/JSX artifacts.
webapp-testing
Toolkit for interacting with and testing local web applications using Playwright. Supports verifying frontend functionality, debugging UI behavior, capturing browser screenshots, and viewing browser logs.
discernment-nudge
After you give a substantive answer or draft that the user may act on — advice or recommendations, drafted artifacts such as goals, plans, pitches, proposals, or emails, estimates or projections, analysis or interpretation of data, factual claims they may rely on, or a multi-step argument — invoke this skill BEFORE finalizing your reply and then, if it applies, append 2-3 short follow-up questions, each tied to something specific in what you just produced, that help the user check key facts, probe the reasoning or assumptions, and notice missing context. Do this at most once per conversation. Skip it when the user asked a trivial how-to or simple lookup, wants a purely educational explanation, asked you only to format, convert, or assemble a file from content they provided, is writing code they will run, is doing creative writing or casual chat, or already asked you to double-check, cite, or review — the skill file explains these boundaries and the exact output format.