ZeroEval
BenchmarkFreeZero-shot LLM evaluation for reasoning tasks.
Capabilities10 decomposed
zero-shot mathematical reasoning evaluation
Medium confidenceEvaluates LLM performance on mathematical reasoning tasks without few-shot examples by implementing standardized problem sets with automated answer extraction and numerical correctness verification. Uses pattern-based answer parsing to handle diverse output formats (natural language, LaTeX, symbolic notation) and compares against ground-truth solutions with tolerance thresholds for floating-point accuracy.
Implements unified zero-shot evaluation specifically designed to isolate reasoning capability from few-shot learning effects, with multi-format answer extraction that handles LaTeX, symbolic, and natural language mathematical expressions without requiring model-specific output formatting
Differs from general LLM benchmarks (MMLU, GSM8K) by explicitly removing few-shot examples and standardizing evaluation across mathematical domains, providing cleaner signal for foundational reasoning ability
logical deduction task evaluation
Medium confidenceAssesses LLM performance on formal logical reasoning tasks using standardized problem sets that require multi-step deduction without examples. Implements structured evaluation of premise-conclusion relationships with support for propositional logic, first-order logic, and natural language reasoning puzzles, using symbolic verification or semantic similarity matching to validate logical correctness.
Provides unified evaluation framework for both symbolic logic and natural language reasoning puzzles in zero-shot setting, with answer verification that can handle both formal symbolic validation and semantic similarity-based matching for natural language conclusions
More specialized than general reasoning benchmarks; focuses specifically on logical deduction without few-shot examples, enabling cleaner measurement of foundational logical capability vs. pattern-matching from examples
code generation task evaluation
Medium confidenceEvaluates LLM code generation capability on programming tasks without few-shot examples using standardized problem sets with automated code execution and correctness verification. Implements test case execution against generated code with support for multiple programming languages, timeout handling, and detailed error reporting to distinguish between syntax errors, runtime failures, and logic errors.
Implements automated test-case-based verification of generated code in zero-shot setting with multi-language support and detailed error classification that distinguishes between different failure modes (syntax vs. runtime vs. logic errors)
More rigorous than static code analysis; uses actual test execution to verify correctness, and specifically targets zero-shot evaluation to isolate code generation capability from few-shot learning effects
unified benchmark dataset management
Medium confidenceProvides standardized dataset loading and management infrastructure for mathematical, logical, and code generation tasks with consistent problem formatting, answer key handling, and metadata tracking. Implements dataset versioning, problem filtering by difficulty/category, and batch processing support to enable reproducible evaluation across different problem domains with a single interface.
Provides unified dataset interface across heterogeneous problem types (math, logic, code) with consistent problem object schema and metadata handling, enabling single evaluation pipeline to work across all domains
Simpler than building separate dataset loaders for each benchmark; standardized interface reduces boilerplate for researchers running multi-domain evaluations
multi-model evaluation orchestration
Medium confidenceOrchestrates evaluation of multiple LLMs against benchmark datasets with support for different inference APIs (OpenAI, Anthropic, local models) and configurable inference parameters. Implements batch processing, result aggregation, and comparative analysis across models with support for parallel evaluation and result caching to reduce redundant API calls.
Implements unified orchestration layer supporting multiple LLM inference backends (OpenAI, Anthropic, local) with configurable inference parameters and result caching, enabling single evaluation pipeline to compare across heterogeneous model sources
Reduces boilerplate for multi-model evaluation; handles API differences and result normalization automatically, allowing researchers to focus on analysis rather than integration plumbing
evaluation result aggregation and reporting
Medium confidenceAggregates evaluation results across problems and models with statistical analysis and report generation. Computes accuracy metrics, confidence intervals, error distributions, and comparative statistics; generates human-readable reports and machine-readable result files for further analysis. Supports filtering and slicing results by problem category, difficulty, or model for detailed performance analysis.
Provides unified result aggregation across heterogeneous problem types (math, logic, code) with support for filtering by problem attributes and generating comparative analysis across models and problem categories
Specialized for zero-shot evaluation reporting; handles multi-domain aggregation and comparative analysis in single pipeline rather than requiring separate analysis scripts per domain
problem-specific answer extraction and validation
Medium confidenceImplements domain-specific answer extraction from LLM outputs using pattern matching, parsing, and semantic analysis tailored to each problem type. For math problems, extracts numerical answers from LaTeX, symbolic notation, and natural language; for logic problems, validates logical conclusions; for code problems, extracts and validates generated code. Handles malformed outputs gracefully with detailed error reporting.
Implements multi-domain answer extraction with specialized parsers for mathematical notation (LaTeX, symbolic), logical conclusions, and code snippets, handling diverse output formats without requiring models to follow strict formatting constraints
More robust than simple string matching; uses domain-specific parsing to extract answers from verbose explanations, enabling evaluation of models that don't follow rigid output formatting
error analysis and failure mode classification
Medium confidenceClassifies evaluation failures into specific error categories (syntax errors, runtime errors, logic errors, timeout, invalid format) with detailed error messages and logs. Provides aggregated error statistics showing which error types are most common across models and problems, enabling targeted debugging and model improvement. Supports custom error classification rules for domain-specific failure modes.
Provides unified error classification across problem types (math, logic, code) with support for custom error categories and aggregated error statistics, enabling systematic analysis of failure modes across models and domains
More detailed than simple pass/fail metrics; categorizes failures to enable targeted debugging and model improvement rather than just reporting overall accuracy
benchmark reproducibility and versioning
Medium confidenceEnsures reproducible evaluation through dataset versioning, problem ID tracking, and result logging with full evaluation configuration capture. Stores evaluation metadata (model version, inference parameters, timestamp, dataset version) alongside results to enable exact reproduction of past evaluations. Supports result comparison across evaluation runs to track model improvements over time.
Captures full evaluation provenance (model version, inference parameters, dataset version, timestamp) alongside results, enabling exact reproduction and comparison of evaluations across time
More rigorous than ad-hoc evaluation; systematic versioning and metadata capture enable transparent, reproducible benchmarking suitable for publication and long-term tracking
batch evaluation with parallelization and resource management
Medium confidenceOrchestrates batch evaluation of multiple models across multiple datasets with configurable parallelization (thread/process-based) and resource management (rate limiting, memory constraints, timeout handling). The framework distributes evaluation tasks across available resources, monitors execution, handles failures gracefully with retry logic, and provides progress tracking and resource utilization metrics.
Implements intelligent batch evaluation orchestration with configurable parallelization, automatic rate limiting, and failure handling, distributing evaluation tasks across available resources while respecting API constraints and resource limits
Provides built-in parallelization and resource management for batch evaluations, whereas most benchmarks require manual orchestration or external workflow tools
Capabilities are decomposed by AI analysis. Each maps to specific user intents and improves with match feedback.
Related Artifactssharing capabilities
Artifacts that share capabilities with ZeroEval, ranked by overlap. Discovered automatically through the match graph.
BIG-Bench Hard (BBH)
23 hardest BIG-Bench tasks where models initially failed.
DeepSeek-V3.2
text-generation model by undefined. 1,13,49,614 downloads.
promptbench
PromptBench is a powerful tool designed to scrutinize and analyze the interaction of large language models with various prompts. It provides a convenient infrastructure to simulate **black-box** adversarial **prompt attacks** on the models and evaluate their performances.
DeepSeek Coder V2
DeepSeek's 236B MoE model specialized for code.
OpenAI: gpt-oss-20b
gpt-oss-20b is an open-weight 21B parameter model released by OpenAI under the Apache 2.0 license. It uses a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture with 3.6B active parameters per forward pass, optimized for...
UGI-Leaderboard
UGI-Leaderboard — AI demo on HuggingFace
Best For
- ✓Researchers evaluating foundational model capabilities in mathematics
- ✓Teams assessing whether an LLM can solve math problems from scratch
- ✓Benchmark maintainers needing standardized zero-shot math evaluation protocols
- ✓Researchers studying LLM reasoning in formal logic domains
- ✓Teams evaluating whether models can handle constraint satisfaction problems
- ✓Benchmark creators needing standardized logical reasoning evaluation
- ✓Researchers evaluating LLM code generation capabilities
- ✓Teams assessing whether models can write functional code from specifications
Known Limitations
- ⚠Answer extraction heuristics may fail on non-standard mathematical notation or multi-step reasoning with intermediate explanations
- ⚠Floating-point tolerance thresholds require manual tuning per problem domain
- ⚠Does not evaluate reasoning quality or solution elegance, only final correctness
- ⚠Symbolic verification requires problems with formally-defined logic; natural language logic puzzles rely on semantic matching which may have false negatives
- ⚠Does not distinguish between correct answers reached through valid vs. invalid reasoning paths
- ⚠Limited to problems with deterministic correct answers; ambiguous or multi-valid-solution problems not well-supported
Requirements
Input / Output
UnfragileRank
UnfragileRank is computed from adoption signals, documentation quality, ecosystem connectivity, match graph feedback, and freshness. No artifact can pay for a higher rank.
About
Unified evaluation framework for assessing LLMs on reasoning tasks without few-shot examples, covering mathematical reasoning, logical deduction, and code generation with standardized zero-shot evaluation protocols.
Categories
Alternatives to ZeroEval
Are you the builder of ZeroEval?
Claim this artifact to get a verified badge, access match analytics, see which intents users search for, and manage your listing.
Get the weekly brief
New tools, rising stars, and what's actually worth your time. No spam.
Data Sources
Looking for something else?
Search →