| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 6 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Aggregates 12,500 hand-curated competition mathematics problems sourced from AMC (American Mathematics Competitions), AIME (American Invitational Mathematics Examination), and other prestigious math olympiads. Problems are structured with metadata including difficulty ratings (1-5 scale), subject classification across 7 domains, and complete step-by-step solutions. The curation process filters for problems that require genuine mathematical reasoning rather than pattern matching, enabling reliable evaluation of model reasoning depth.
Unique: Curated from actual mathematics competitions (AMC/AIME) rather than synthetic or textbook problems, ensuring problems require genuine multi-step reasoning and cannot be solved by pattern matching alone. Includes difficulty stratification (1-5) and subject taxonomy across 7 mathematical domains, enabling fine-grained capability analysis. Verified solutions provided by domain experts, not generated by models.
vs alternatives: More rigorous than general math benchmarks (e.g., SVAMP, MathQA) because it uses authentic competition problems with higher reasoning complexity; more comprehensive than single-domain datasets because it spans 7 mathematical subjects with 12,500 problems; more reliable than synthetic benchmarks because problems are human-authored and competition-tested.
Enables selective sampling of problems across a 5-level difficulty scale, allowing researchers to construct evaluation sets tailored to specific model capability ranges. The difficulty metadata is pre-assigned during curation, enabling efficient filtering without re-evaluation. This supports progressive evaluation strategies where models are first tested on easier problems (difficulty 1-2) before advancing to harder ones (difficulty 4-5), reducing computational waste on problems beyond a model's current capability.
Unique: Pre-assigned difficulty metadata (1-5 scale) from competition context enables efficient filtering without re-evaluation, unlike datasets where difficulty must be computed post-hoc. Difficulty labels are grounded in actual competition difficulty (AMC problems are easier, AIME problems are harder), providing meaningful stratification.
vs alternatives: More efficient than datasets requiring dynamic difficulty estimation because filtering is O(1) lookup on metadata; more reliable than model-specific difficulty metrics because it uses competition-grounded labels that generalize across model architectures.
Organizes 12,500 problems into 7 distinct mathematical subject categories (Prealgebra, Algebra, Number Theory, Counting and Probability, Geometry, Intermediate Algebra, Precalculus), enabling domain-specific evaluation and analysis. Each problem is tagged with its primary subject during curation, allowing researchers to isolate performance on specific mathematical domains and identify capability gaps (e.g., a model may excel at algebra but struggle with geometry). Supports both filtering and aggregation queries across subject boundaries.
Unique: Problems are curated and tagged with subject metadata from their original competition context, ensuring accurate domain classification. The 7-subject taxonomy reflects the structure of actual mathematics competitions, making it meaningful for evaluating mathematical reasoning across recognized disciplines.
vs alternatives: More granular than generic math benchmarks that treat all math problems uniformly; more reliable than automatic subject classification because tags are assigned by domain experts during curation, not inferred post-hoc; enables domain-specific analysis that generic benchmarks cannot support.
Each of the 12,500 problems includes detailed step-by-step solutions that decompose the problem-solving process into intermediate reasoning steps. Solutions are provided in natural language format with mathematical notation, enabling evaluation of not just final answers but also intermediate reasoning quality. This supports training and evaluation of chain-of-thought reasoning models, where the ability to generate correct intermediate steps is as important as reaching the correct final answer. Solutions are verified by domain experts during curation, ensuring correctness.
Unique: Solutions are expert-verified and provided as part of the dataset curation, not generated post-hoc by models. This ensures high-quality ground truth for training and evaluation. Solutions include intermediate reasoning steps in natural language, enabling evaluation of reasoning quality beyond final answer correctness.
vs alternatives: More valuable than datasets with only final answers because it enables chain-of-thought training and intermediate step evaluation; more reliable than model-generated solutions because they are human-authored and verified; more detailed than simple answer keys because it includes full reasoning paths.
Provides a stable, unchanging evaluation set that enables longitudinal tracking of model performance improvements over time. The dataset's fixed composition (12,500 problems) and expert-curated solutions allow researchers to compare results across different model versions, architectures, and training approaches using identical evaluation conditions. Historical performance data (e.g., GPT-3 at 6.9%, o3 and DeepSeek R1 at 90%+) is tracked and published, enabling researchers to contextualize new model performance against established baselines.
Unique: Fixed, expert-curated dataset enables stable longitudinal benchmarking without dataset drift or contamination. Published historical performance data (GPT-3 6.9% → o3/DeepSeek R1 90%+) provides context for new results. Difficulty stratification and subject taxonomy enable fine-grained performance analysis beyond single accuracy scores.
vs alternatives: More stable than dynamic benchmarks that change over time because the problem set is frozen; more reliable than leaderboards without published solutions because results can be independently verified; more informative than single-point benchmarks because historical data enables trend analysis and contextualization.
Enables construction of evaluation sets with balanced representation across the 7 mathematical subjects, ensuring that benchmark results are not skewed by subject-specific performance variations. Researchers can programmatically sample equal numbers of problems from each subject (e.g., 100 problems per subject for a 700-problem evaluation set) or weight sampling by subject difficulty distribution. This supports fair, representative evaluation that reflects overall mathematical reasoning capability rather than performance on a single domain.
Unique: Subject metadata enables programmatic construction of balanced evaluation sets without manual curation. The 7-subject taxonomy provides a natural framework for balancing, unlike datasets with coarse or overlapping categories.
vs alternatives: More flexible than fixed evaluation sets because it supports custom weighting and sampling; more fair than unbalanced datasets because it ensures equal representation across domains; more reproducible than manual curation because sampling is deterministic and can be seeded.
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 MATH at 59/100.
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