| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 11 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Reranks candidate documents against a query using a cross-encoder architecture that jointly encodes query-document pairs through cross-attention mechanisms, producing normalized relevance scores. Supports 100+ languages without language-specific model variants, enabling multilingual RAG pipelines to improve retrieval precision by 20-40% when integrated downstream of initial retrieval. Processes documents up to 4,096 tokens and returns scored rankings suitable for context selection in LLM prompts.
Unique: Uses cross-attention mechanism to jointly encode query-document pairs rather than separate embeddings, enabling fine-grained relevance assessment across 100+ languages without language-specific model variants. Achieves 20-40% precision improvement when inserted into existing retrieval pipelines (BM25, vector, hybrid) without requiring retriever retraining.
vs alternatives: Outperforms embedding-based reranking (which uses separate query/document encodings) by capturing query-document interaction patterns; faster to integrate than retraining retrievers and language-agnostic unlike monolingual ranking models.
Integrates seamlessly into existing search infrastructure by accepting pre-retrieved candidate documents from any backend (BM25, vector similarity, hybrid search) and returning reranked results without modifying the underlying retriever. Acts as a precision filter layer that can be inserted post-retrieval in RAG pipelines, search APIs, or agent context-selection workflows. Supports batch reranking of multiple document sets per query.
Unique: Designed as a drop-in precision layer that works with any search backend (BM25, vector, hybrid) without requiring backend-specific adapters or retriever modifications. Uses cross-encoder ranking to improve relevance independently of the initial retrieval method.
vs alternatives: More flexible than retraining retrievers (no model retraining required) and more effective than post-hoc embedding-based reranking (cross-attention captures query-document interactions better than separate embeddings).
Cohere maintains multiple reranking model versions (Rerank 3, Rerank 3.5, Rerank 4 Fast, Rerank 4 Pro) with incremental performance improvements. Rerank 3 is superseded by newer versions (Rerank 4 announced December 11, 2025) offering better accuracy and speed. API supports version selection, enabling gradual migration to newer models or A/B testing of versions.
Unique: Multiple model versions (Fast, Pro variants) enable explicit accuracy-latency tradeoffs — teams can choose Fast for latency-sensitive applications or Pro for maximum accuracy. Continuous model improvements (Rerank 4 supersedes Rerank 3) ensure access to latest advances without code changes.
vs alternatives: More flexible than static open-source models (e.g., BGE-Reranker) that require manual retraining for improvements; simpler than maintaining custom model variants because Cohere handles versioning and deprecation.
Processes documents up to 4,096 tokens per document, automatically handling truncation for longer texts while preserving relevance signals. Uses cross-encoder attention to assess query-document relevance across long-form content including emails, tables, JSON, and code. Designed for enterprise document types where relevance may span multiple sections or require understanding of document structure.
Unique: Explicitly supports enterprise document types (emails, tables, JSON, code) with cross-encoder attention that captures relevance across long-form content. Token-aware processing with 4,096-token limit designed for real-world document lengths in workplace search scenarios.
vs alternatives: Handles longer documents than embedding-based reranking (which typically use 512-token limits) and supports semi-structured data better than generic text rerankers through cross-attention mechanisms.
Ranks documents in 100+ languages using a single unified cross-encoder model without requiring language detection or language-specific model switching. Processes queries and documents in different languages within the same request, enabling cross-lingual relevance assessment. Designed for global enterprises and multilingual document collections without the overhead of maintaining separate ranking models per language.
Unique: Single cross-encoder model handles 100+ languages without language-specific variants or language detection, reducing operational complexity compared to maintaining separate ranking models per language. Enables cross-lingual relevance assessment (query in one language, documents in another).
vs alternatives: Simpler operational model than language-specific rerankers (no language detection or model switching) and more cost-effective than maintaining separate models per language; however, performance per language unknown compared to language-specific alternatives.
Filters and reranks retrieved documents before passing to LLM context windows, ensuring only the most relevant documents are included in prompts. Reduces hallucinations and improves answer quality by removing low-relevance documents that could introduce noise or conflicting information. Integrates into RAG pipelines as a precision layer between retrieval and LLM generation, with scores enabling threshold-based filtering for context window constraints.
Unique: Positioned as a precision layer specifically for RAG pipelines, using cross-encoder ranking to improve document relevance before LLM processing. Achieves 20-40% improvement in ranking quality, which translates to better context selection for generation.
vs alternatives: More effective than simple BM25 or embedding-based ranking for RAG context selection because cross-attention captures query-document relevance better; reduces hallucinations better than unfiltered retrieval by removing low-confidence documents.
Provides reranking via REST API endpoint (`/rerank` v2 API) with cloud-hosted inference on Cohere's infrastructure, Azure AI integration, or private VPC/on-premises deployment through Model Vault. Supports trial API keys (free, rate-limited, development-only) and production API keys (paid, commercial-grade). Enables flexible deployment models from rapid prototyping to enterprise-grade private inference without managing GPU infrastructure.
Unique: Offers flexible deployment options: cloud-hosted API (free trial + paid production), Azure AI integration, and private VPC/on-premises through Model Vault. Eliminates GPU infrastructure management while supporting enterprise data residency requirements.
vs alternatives: More flexible than self-hosted reranking models (no GPU management, no model weight downloads) and more cost-effective than building custom reranking infrastructure; private deployment option differentiates from cloud-only competitors.
Processes multiple documents per query in a single API request, enabling batch reranking of large candidate sets without per-document API calls. Supports reranking multiple queries with their respective document sets in a single batch operation. Reduces API overhead and latency compared to sequential per-document ranking, suitable for bulk processing and high-throughput RAG pipelines.
Unique: Supports batch reranking of multiple documents per query and multiple queries per request, reducing API overhead compared to per-document calls. Designed for high-throughput RAG pipelines and bulk processing workflows.
vs alternatives: More efficient than sequential per-document API calls; reduces latency and API costs for large-scale reranking operations compared to single-document reranking models.
+3 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 Cohere Rerank 3 at 57/100.
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