| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 12 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Automatically evaluates instruction-following model outputs by using a judge LLM (GPT-4, Claude, etc.) to perform pairwise comparisons between two model responses on the same instruction. Implements length-controlled win rate calculation that normalizes for output length bias by penalizing verbosity, preventing longer but lower-quality outputs from unfairly winning comparisons. The system uses configurable judge prompts and completion parsers to extract structured win/loss decisions from judge LLM outputs.
Unique: Implements length-controlled win rate as a first-class metric that explicitly penalizes verbosity through a configurable length penalty function, addressing a known bias in LLM-as-judge evaluation where longer outputs are preferred regardless of quality. Most competing benchmarks (HELM, LMSys) use raw pairwise wins without length normalization.
vs alternatives: Faster and cheaper than human evaluation while maintaining high correlation with human judgments; more length-bias-aware than raw pairwise comparison systems like LMSys Chatbot Arena
Abstracts interactions with different LLM providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Hugging Face, vLLM) through a unified Decoder interface and registry system. Each provider has a dedicated decoder class that handles authentication, API calls, response parsing, and caching. The system supports both API-based models (GPT-4, Claude) and local inference engines (vLLM, Ollama), with automatic fallback and retry logic for failed requests.
Unique: Implements a pluggable Decoder registry pattern that unifies OpenAI, Anthropic, Hugging Face, vLLM, and Ollama under a single interface, with built-in caching and retry logic. The decoder abstraction allows swapping judge models without changing evaluation logic, and supports both cloud APIs and local inference in the same framework.
vs alternatives: More flexible than single-provider benchmarks (e.g., LMSys Chatbot Arena which uses only GPT-4); cheaper than cloud-only solutions by supporting local open-source judges
Validates and preprocesses model outputs before evaluation, including format checking (JSON structure), field validation (required 'instruction' and 'output' fields), and optional cleaning (whitespace normalization, encoding fixes). Detects and reports malformed outputs that would cause evaluation to fail. Supports multiple input formats (JSON, JSONL, CSV) with automatic format detection and conversion to internal representation.
Unique: Provides multi-format input support (JSON, JSONL, CSV) with automatic format detection and validation, reducing friction when integrating outputs from different model sources. Includes optional cleaning operations that normalize common issues without requiring manual preprocessing.
vs alternatives: More flexible than single-format benchmarks; more transparent than implicit format conversion
Enables reproducible evaluations by capturing all evaluation parameters (judge model, prompt template, length penalty, random seed) in YAML configuration files that can be version-controlled and shared. Evaluation results include metadata (configuration hash, evaluation date, judge model version) allowing tracing back to exact evaluation setup. Supports loading prior configurations to reproduce historical evaluation runs.
Unique: Captures all evaluation parameters in version-controlled YAML configurations with metadata tracking, enabling reproducible evaluations and transparent methodology auditing. Configuration-based approach allows sharing evaluation setup without code, improving accessibility for non-engineers.
vs alternatives: More reproducible than ad-hoc evaluation scripts; more transparent than implicit parameter defaults
Allows customization of the prompt template used to instruct the judge LLM on how to compare two model outputs. Supports multiple evaluation methodologies (pairwise comparison, ranking, scoring) through different prompt templates stored as YAML configurations. Includes a completion parser system that extracts structured decisions (win/loss/tie) from free-form judge LLM outputs using regex patterns and heuristics, handling cases where the judge outputs ambiguous or malformed responses.
Unique: Decouples judge prompt design from evaluation logic through a configuration-driven approach, allowing non-engineers to modify evaluation criteria by editing YAML files. Includes a completion parser abstraction that handles malformed judge outputs, reducing brittleness compared to systems that expect exact output formats.
vs alternatives: More flexible than fixed-prompt benchmarks (e.g., HELM which uses hardcoded prompts); more robust than simple string-matching parsers by using regex and heuristic fallbacks
Orchestrates evaluation of multiple model pairs through three modes: (1) annotate_pairs() for evaluating pre-specified pairs, (2) annotate_head2head() for comparing two models across all instructions, and (3) annotate_samples() for randomly sampling pairs from a larger set of models. Implements efficient batching of judge requests to reduce API calls, with optional parallel execution across multiple judge instances. Supports tournament-style evaluation where models are ranked through transitive comparisons.
Unique: Implements three distinct evaluation modes (pairs, head-to-head, sampling) within a unified API, allowing users to choose evaluation strategy based on budget and model count. The sampling mode enables approximate rankings for large model sets without quadratic cost, using statistical sampling rather than exhaustive comparison.
vs alternatives: More flexible than single-mode benchmarks; sampling strategy is more cost-effective than exhaustive pairwise comparison for large model sets
Computes a length-adjusted win rate that penalizes longer outputs to control for length bias. The metric applies a configurable length penalty function (e.g., exponential decay) to the raw win rate based on the difference in output lengths between the two models being compared. Implemented in the metrics calculation pipeline, this allows fair comparison between verbose and concise models by normalizing for the confound that judges tend to prefer longer responses.
Unique: Introduces length-controlled win rate as a first-class metric that explicitly accounts for length bias through a configurable penalty function, addressing a known confound in LLM evaluation. Most competing benchmarks (HELM, LMSys) report raw win rates without length adjustment, making them vulnerable to verbosity bias.
vs alternatives: More principled than raw win rate by explicitly controlling for length bias; more transparent than implicit length control through prompt engineering
Aggregates pairwise comparison results into ranked leaderboards showing each model's win rate, number of comparisons, and ranking position. Supports multiple export formats (CSV, JSON, HTML) and includes statistical summaries (mean win rate, standard deviation, confidence intervals). The leaderboard system handles ties and incomplete comparisons, and can generate both overall rankings and per-category breakdowns (e.g., by instruction type or difficulty).
Unique: Provides multi-format leaderboard export (CSV, JSON, HTML) with configurable ranking statistics and per-category breakdowns, enabling both programmatic access and human-readable presentation. Includes built-in handling of ties and incomplete comparisons, which are common in real-world evaluation scenarios.
vs alternatives: More flexible export options than single-format benchmarks; supports per-category analysis which most benchmarks lack
+4 more capabilities
Provides a standardized evaluation framework for code generation models that accepts generated code in 17 programming languages (C, C++, C#, Java, Kotlin, Go, Rust, Python, Ruby, PHP, JavaScript, Perl, Haskell, OCaml, Scala, D, Pascal) and validates correctness through actual execution against unit tests via the ExecEval Docker-based execution engine. Uses a centralized problem definition model with src_uid foreign keys linking generated code to shared problem descriptions and unittest_db.json, enabling consistent evaluation across language variants of the same problem.
Unique: Combines 25M training examples across 7,500 unique problems with an execution-based evaluation pipeline (ExecEval) that actually runs generated code in Docker containers against unit tests, rather than relying on static analysis or string matching. The src_uid linking system creates a normalized data model where problem descriptions and tests are stored once and referenced by all language variants, eliminating duplication and ensuring consistency.
vs alternatives: Larger scale (25M examples vs typical 10-100K) and true execution-based validation across more languages (17 vs 4-6) than HumanEval or CodeXGLUE, with explicit support for code translation and repair tasks beyond generation.
Implements a foreign key linking system where all task-specific datasets (program synthesis, code translation, APR, retrieval) reference shared problem definitions via src_uid identifiers. Problem descriptions and unit tests are stored once in centralized problem_descriptions.jsonl and unittest_db.json files, then linked by src_uid to avoid duplication. The Hugging Face datasets API automatically resolves these links during data loading, returning enriched DatasetDict objects with problem context pre-joined to task examples.
Unique: Uses a normalized relational data model (src_uid as foreign key) for a code benchmark, treating problem definitions as a separate entity layer rather than embedding them in each task dataset. This is more sophisticated than typical flat-file benchmark structures and enables consistent multi-task evaluation on identical problems.
xCodeEval scores higher at 67/100 vs AlpacaEval at 64/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
vs alternatives: More efficient than duplicating problem descriptions across 7 task datasets (reduces storage by ~30-40%), and enables automatic link resolution via Hugging Face API unlike manual CSV joins in CodeXGLUE or HumanEval variants.
Provides a Python API for loading xCodeEval datasets from Hugging Face Hub (NTU-NLP-sg/xCodeEval) with automatic src_uid-based linking between task datasets and shared problem definitions. The datasets library handles data downloading, caching, and streaming, while the xCodeEval integration automatically joins task examples with problem_descriptions.jsonl and unittest_db.json using src_uid foreign keys. Returns DatasetDict objects with enriched examples ready for model training or evaluation.
Unique: Integrates xCodeEval with Hugging Face datasets library, providing automatic src_uid resolution and streaming support. Treats data loading as a first-class concern with built-in linking logic, rather than requiring manual JSON parsing.
vs alternatives: More convenient than manual Git LFS downloads because it handles caching and automatic linking, and integrates seamlessly with Hugging Face training pipelines vs custom data loaders.
Provides an alternative data access method using Git LFS for users who prefer direct file access or need selective dataset downloads. Supports cloning the repository with LFS disabled, then pulling specific task files or problem definitions on demand. Useful for custom processing pipelines or environments where Python/Hugging Face is not available, though requires manual src_uid linking to join task examples with problem definitions.
Unique: Provides Git LFS-based alternative to Hugging Face API, enabling direct file access and selective downloads. Requires manual src_uid linking but offers more control over data access patterns.
vs alternatives: More flexible than Hugging Face API for selective downloads and custom pipelines, but requires more manual work for src_uid linking and lacks automatic caching/streaming.
Implements a standardized three-phase evaluation pipeline (Phase 1: Generation, Phase 2: Execution, Phase 3: Metrics) that applies consistently across all 7 tasks (program synthesis, code translation, APR, tag classification, code compilation, NL-code retrieval, code-code retrieval). Phase 1 generates or retrieves code, Phase 2 executes it via ExecEval or computes retrieval metrics, and Phase 3 aggregates results into pass@k, MRR, NDCG, or other task-specific metrics. Enables direct comparison of model performance across tasks.
Unique: Defines a unified three-phase evaluation pipeline that applies to all 7 tasks, treating generation, execution, and metric computation as separate concerns. Enables consistent evaluation methodology across diverse task types (generation, translation, retrieval, classification).
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than task-specific evaluation scripts because it provides a unified framework for all 7 tasks, and enables direct comparison of model performance across different task types.
Evaluates code generation models on the program synthesis task by accepting natural language problem descriptions and generating code solutions in any of 17 languages. The evaluation pipeline (Phase 1: Generation, Phase 2: Execution, Phase 3: Metrics) runs generated code against unit tests via ExecEval, computing pass@k metrics (pass@1, pass@10, etc.) that measure the probability of finding a correct solution within k samples. Supports both single-solution and multi-sample evaluation modes for assessing model reliability.
Unique: Implements a three-phase evaluation pipeline (Generation → Execution → Metrics) with explicit pass@k computation that measures the probability of finding a correct solution within k attempts, rather than just binary pass/fail. Supports multi-sample evaluation across 17 languages with language-specific compiler configurations and timeout handling.
vs alternatives: More rigorous than HumanEval's simple pass@k because it handles language-specific compilation errors and timeouts explicitly, and scales to 25M training examples vs HumanEval's 164 problems.
Evaluates code translation models by accepting source code in one language and generated translations in a target language, then validating functional equivalence through execution against shared unit tests. The translation evaluation pipeline compiles and executes both source and translated code against the same unittest_db.json test cases, comparing outputs to detect translation errors. Supports all 17 language pairs (though not all pairs may have training data) and uses language-specific compiler mappings to handle syntax differences.
Unique: Validates code translation by executing both source and target code against identical unit tests and comparing outputs, ensuring functional equivalence rather than syntactic similarity. Uses language-specific compiler mappings to handle the complexity of 17 different compilation environments and their idiosyncrasies.
vs alternatives: More rigorous than BLEU-score-based translation metrics because it validates actual functional correctness through execution, and covers more language pairs (17 vs typical 2-4) with explicit compiler integration.
Evaluates program repair models by providing buggy code snippets and expecting corrected versions that pass unit tests. The APR evaluation pipeline executes repaired code against unittest_db.json test cases, measuring whether the repair successfully fixes the bug without introducing new failures. Supports repairs across all 17 languages and uses the same execution-based validation as program synthesis, enabling direct comparison of repair quality.
Unique: Treats program repair as an executable task where success is measured by unit test passage, rather than syntactic similarity to reference repairs. Integrates with the same ExecEval pipeline as program synthesis, enabling direct performance comparison between generation and repair models.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than traditional APR benchmarks (Defects4J, QuixBugs) because it covers 17 languages and 7,500 problems vs 395 Java bugs, and uses consistent execution-based metrics across all repair types.
+5 more capabilities