xCodeEval ranks higher at 67/100 vs MBPP (Mostly Basic Python Problems) at 60/100. Capability-level comparison backed by match graph evidence from real search data.
| Feature | MBPP (Mostly Basic Python Problems) | 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 |
Provides a standardized dataset of 974 Python programming problems with reference solutions and test cases to measure code generation model accuracy. Each problem includes a natural language task description, a correct implementation function, and three validation test cases that verify functional correctness. Models generate code solutions which are executed against these test cases to compute pass@k metrics (percentage of problems solved within k attempts).
Unique: Curated by Google Research specifically to complement HumanEval by focusing on breadth of basic programming concepts (string manipulation, list operations, mathematical functions, data structures) rather than algorithmic complexity, with human-verified reference solutions and minimal but sufficient test cases per problem
vs alternatives: Broader coverage of basic programming patterns than HumanEval's focus on algorithmic problems, making it better for evaluating practical coding proficiency; smaller and more focused than massive code corpora, enabling faster iteration and clearer signal on fundamental capabilities
Executes generated Python code against a suite of predefined test cases to determine functional correctness at scale. The validation system runs each generated solution through 3 test cases per problem, capturing execution results, exceptions, and output matching. Supports batch evaluation of multiple model outputs across all 974 problems with aggregation of pass rates and failure analysis.
Unique: Provides a standardized, reproducible validation harness with 3 test cases per problem that can be applied uniformly across different code generation models, enabling fair comparison; includes reference implementations that serve as ground truth for correctness checking
vs alternatives: More reliable than manual code review for large-scale evaluation; faster than human testing while maintaining sufficient coverage for basic programming problems; standardized test cases ensure consistent evaluation across different models and research groups
Organizes 974 problems into categories based on programming concepts tested: string manipulation, list operations, mathematical functions, and data structure algorithms. Each problem is tagged with the primary concepts it exercises, enabling filtered evaluation and analysis by concept area. This categorization allows researchers to understand model performance on specific programming domains and identify capability gaps.
Unique: Curated categorization by Google Research based on fundamental programming concepts (string, list, math, data structures) rather than algorithmic complexity or problem domain, providing a practical lens for understanding basic coding proficiency across different skill areas
vs alternatives: More granular than treating all problems as a single pool; simpler and more interpretable than complexity-based rankings; directly maps to programming education curricula, making results actionable for model improvement
Maintains a curated collection of 974 correct Python implementations paired with their corresponding test cases. Each problem includes a reference solution function that serves as ground truth for correctness evaluation, plus 3 test cases with inputs and expected outputs. This repository enables reproducible evaluation by providing a stable baseline that all generated code is compared against.
Unique: Provides human-verified reference implementations curated by Google Research rather than automatically generated or crowd-sourced solutions, ensuring high quality and correctness; paired with minimal but sufficient test cases that validate the reference solution
vs alternatives: More reliable than crowd-sourced solutions (e.g., from Stack Overflow); more interpretable than learned baselines; enables reproducible evaluation because reference solutions are fixed and publicly available
Computes pass@k metrics by sampling k generated solutions per problem and checking if at least one passes all test cases. Aggregates results across all 974 problems to produce overall pass@1, pass@10, pass@100 statistics. This metric accounts for the fact that code generation models can produce multiple valid solutions and benefits from sampling multiple attempts.
Unique: Implements the standard pass@k metric used across code generation research, enabling direct comparison with published results; accounts for sampling variance by checking if any of k attempts solves the problem, reflecting real-world usage where multiple attempts are feasible
vs alternatives: More realistic than pass@1 alone because it accounts for the fact that code generation models can produce multiple solutions; standardized metric enables comparison across papers and research groups; computationally tractable for k up to 100 on 974 problems
Enables systematic comparison of different code generation models by running them all against the same 974 problems with identical test cases and evaluation criteria. Results are aggregated into leaderboard-style rankings showing pass@k metrics for each model. This standardized comparison framework allows researchers to objectively assess which models perform better on basic programming tasks.
Unique: Provides a standardized, reproducible framework for comparing code generation models using identical problems and test cases, enabling fair assessment across different architectures, training approaches, and organizations; results are publicly available and widely cited in research
vs alternatives: More objective than subjective code quality assessments; more standardized than ad-hoc comparisons using different test sets; enables tracking progress over time as models improve
Analyzes the distribution of problem difficulty, concept coverage, and solution complexity across the 974 problems. Provides insights into what programming concepts are well-represented in the dataset and which are underrepresented. Enables researchers to understand the breadth and balance of the benchmark and identify potential gaps in coverage.
Unique: Provides structured analysis of problem distribution across programming concepts, enabling researchers to understand the benchmark's scope and identify coverage gaps; curated by Google Research with explicit categorization of problems by concept type
vs alternatives: More transparent than treating the benchmark as a black box; enables targeted evaluation of specific programming skills; helps researchers understand whether MBPP is suitable for their evaluation needs
Includes a correct reference implementation and three test cases for each of the 974 problems, enabling both positive and negative evaluation modes. The reference solutions are hand-written Python functions demonstrating the expected behavior, while test cases cover typical inputs, edge cases, and boundary conditions. This allows evaluation of generated code by comparing outputs to reference solutions or by running test cases directly, supporting both execution-based and semantic-based evaluation approaches.
Unique: Provides three test cases per problem (vs. single test in some benchmarks) enabling detection of edge case failures, with hand-written reference solutions demonstrating correct implementations
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than benchmarks with single test cases, as multiple tests catch off-by-one errors and edge case failures that would pass with only one input
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 MBPP (Mostly Basic Python Problems) 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