Datasets › HumanRankEval
HumanRankEval
Language models (LMs) as conversational assistants recently became popular tools that help people accomplish a variety of tasks. These typically result from adapting LMs pretrained on general domain text sequences through further instruction-tuning and possibly preference optimisation methods. The evaluation of such LMs would ideally be performed using human judgement, however, this is not scalable. On the other hand, automatic evaluation featuring auxiliary LMs as judges and/or knowledge-based tasks is scalable but struggles with assessing conversational ability and adherence to instructions. To help accelerate the development of LMs as conversational assistants, we propose a novel automatic evaluation task: HumanRankEval (HRE). It consists of a large-scale, diverse and high-quality set of questions, each with several answers authored and scored by humans. To perform evaluation, HRE ranks these answers based on their log-likelihood under the LM’s distribution, and subsequently calculates their correlation with the corresponding human rankings. We support HRE’s efficacy by investigating how efficiently it separates pretrained and instruction-tuned LMs of various sizes. We show that HRE correlates well with human judgements and is particularly responsive to model changes following instruction-tuning.
Benchmarks archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard in the archive resolves to this dataset.
Papers archive 2025-07-28
No paper in the archive has a leaderboard row on this dataset; the archive counts 1 paper for it but never published that list.
Dataset loaders archive 2025-07-28
No loader listed in the archive.
Tasks archive 2025-07-28
No task tagged in the archive.
License archive 2025-07-28
No licence recorded in the archive. Absence here is not a statement about the dataset's terms.
Modalities archive 2025-07-28
No modality tagged.
Languages archive 2025-07-28
No language tagged.
Variants archive 2025-07-28
- HumanRankEval
1 variant name, as the archive lists them.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections