general benchmark
HumanEvalFIM-Average
Average evaluation of HumanEval Fill-in-the-Middle benchmark variants (single-line, multi-line, random-span) for assessing code infilling capabilities of language models
Updated Aug 11, 2026
Models1
Model coverage1
MetricScore
EvidenceB
HumanEvalFIM-Average Ranking
Higher score ranks better on this benchmark.
| 1 | MA | 91.6% | 100.0% | 1 | C |
HumanEvalFIM-Average Highlights
The leading models and scores on this benchmark.
What is HumanEvalFIM-Average?
What HumanEvalFIM-Average measures and how its scores work.
Average evaluation of HumanEval Fill-in-the-Middle benchmark variants (single-line, multi-line, random-span) for assessing code infilling capabilities of language models
Scores are shown in ratio. This benchmark is not independently verified and has an evidence level of B.
- Family
- HumanEvalFIM-Average
- Modality
- text
- Primary category
- general
- Score direction
- higher
- LLMBoard eligible
- No
- Evaluation key
- humanevalfim-average|llm-stats-current
Benchmark scores retain their original unit. Overall score eligibility is shown separately.
FAQ
Common questions about HumanEvalFIM-Average.
Which model scores highest on HumanEvalFIM-Average?
Codestral-22B is currently ranked first with 91.6%.
What does HumanEvalFIM-Average measure?
Average evaluation of HumanEval Fill-in-the-Middle benchmark variants (single-line, multi-line, random-span) for assessing code infilling capabilities of language models
Is a higher score better?
Yes. Higher values rank better for this benchmark.
How many models are compared?
1 model results are currently shown.
Does this benchmark affect the overall score?
No. This benchmark is shown for reference but does not contribute to the overall score.