xCodeEval ranks higher at 67/100 vs APPS (Automated Programming Progress Standard) at 60/100. Capability-level comparison backed by match graph evidence from real search data.
| Feature | APPS (Automated Programming Progress Standard) | xCodeEval |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Dataset | Benchmark |
| UnfragileRank | 60/100 | 67/100 |
| Adoption | 1 | 1 |
| Quality | 1 | 1 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 8 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Aggregates 10,000 coding problems from four distinct online judge platforms (Codewars, AtCoder, Kattis, Codeforces) into a unified dataset schema with normalized problem descriptions, input/output specifications, and executable test suites. Each problem includes an average of 21 test cases extracted from the original platform's validation infrastructure, enabling consistent evaluation across heterogeneous problem sources with different original formats and difficulty classifications.
Unique: Combines problems from four independent online judge platforms with heterogeneous formats into a single normalized schema with consistent test execution semantics, rather than using a single-source benchmark like HumanEval or MBPP
vs alternatives: 10x larger problem set than HumanEval (10K vs 164 problems) with higher algorithmic complexity and real-world difficulty distribution, making it more representative of production code generation challenges
Partitions the 10,000 problems into three discrete difficulty tiers (introductory: 3,639 problems, interview: 5,000 problems, competition: 1,361 problems) based on source platform difficulty ratings and algorithmic complexity. Enables selective evaluation of code generation models against specific skill levels, allowing researchers to measure performance degradation as problem complexity increases and identify capability gaps at each tier.
Unique: Explicitly stratifies problems into three difficulty tiers with substantial size per tier (3.6K, 5K, 1.4K), enabling fine-grained analysis of model performance degradation across skill levels rather than treating all problems as equal difficulty
vs alternatives: Unlike HumanEval which lacks difficulty stratification, APPS enables researchers to measure whether models have genuine reasoning or are pattern-matching, by comparing performance across tiers
Provides executable test suites averaging 21 test cases per problem, sourced directly from original online judge platforms and normalized into a unified execution format. Enables end-to-end evaluation of generated code by running test cases against candidate solutions and computing pass rates (percentage of test cases passed), rather than relying on single-example correctness or syntax validation.
Unique: Provides 21 test cases per problem on average (vs single example in HumanEval), enabling rigorous pass-rate evaluation and pass@k metrics that measure robustness across multiple test cases rather than single-shot correctness
vs alternatives: Comprehensive test suites catch partial solutions and edge case failures that single-example evaluation would miss, providing more reliable quality signals for code generation systems
Structures problems as natural language descriptions paired with input/output specifications and test suites, enabling end-to-end evaluation of the full code generation pipeline from problem understanding through test validation. Problems are sourced from real online judge platforms where humans have already validated problem clarity, creating a realistic distribution of problem statement quality and ambiguity.
Unique: Evaluates the complete pipeline from natural language problem description to working code with comprehensive test validation, rather than isolated code completion or API-call tasks, reflecting real-world coding workflows
vs alternatives: More challenging than HumanEval because it requires genuine problem understanding and algorithmic reasoning, not just API knowledge or simple pattern completion
Curates problems that require algorithmic thinking, data structure selection, and computational complexity analysis rather than simple API calls or pattern matching. Problems span domains including dynamic programming, graph algorithms, number theory, and combinatorics, sourced from competitive programming platforms (AtCoder, Codeforces, Kattis) where algorithmic rigor is enforced by time and memory limits.
Unique: Explicitly sources problems from competitive programming platforms (AtCoder, Codeforces, Kattis) where algorithmic rigor and time/memory limits enforce genuine complexity requirements, rather than using toy problems that can be solved with naive approaches
vs alternatives: Tests genuine algorithmic reasoning rather than API knowledge; problems cannot be solved by simple pattern matching or memorization, requiring models to understand data structures, complexity analysis, and algorithm selection
Normalizes problems from four heterogeneous online judge platforms (Codewars, AtCoder, Kattis, Codeforces) with different native formats, input/output conventions, and metadata structures into a unified dataset schema. Handles platform-specific quirks such as different test case formats, input parsing conventions, and output validation rules, enabling consistent evaluation across sources without platform-specific branching logic.
Unique: Implements custom extraction and normalization logic for four distinct online judge platforms with different native formats, rather than using a single-source dataset or generic web scraping
vs alternatives: Unified schema enables consistent evaluation across diverse problem sources without platform-specific branching, whereas single-source benchmarks (HumanEval, MBPP) lack diversity and may have platform-specific biases
Extracts and structures metadata from problems including difficulty ratings, source platform, problem tags/categories, input/output constraints, and test case counts. Metadata is normalized across platforms despite different native labeling schemes (e.g., Codewars kyu/dan vs Codeforces rating vs AtCoder color), enabling filtering, stratification, and analysis by problem attributes.
Unique: Normalizes metadata across four platforms with different native labeling schemes (Codewars kyu/dan, Codeforces rating, AtCoder color, Kattis difficulty) into a unified difficulty scale, rather than preserving platform-specific labels
vs alternatives: Enables cross-platform analysis and filtering that would be impossible with platform-specific metadata, allowing researchers to identify performance patterns independent of source platform
Provides a curated, publicly available dataset of 10,000 problems with comprehensive test suites, enabling large-scale evaluation of code generation models without requiring researchers to build their own evaluation infrastructure. Dataset is hosted on Hugging Face and can be loaded via standard dataset libraries, reducing friction for reproducible benchmarking and enabling comparison across research groups.
Unique: Publicly available on Hugging Face with standardized dataset loading interface, enabling reproducible benchmarking across research groups without custom infrastructure, rather than proprietary or difficult-to-access benchmarks
vs alternatives: 10x larger than HumanEval (10K vs 164 problems) with more realistic difficulty distribution and comprehensive test suites, enabling more reliable statistical conclusions about model 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 APPS (Automated Programming Progress Standard) at 60/100.
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