| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 11 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Aggregates 100+ billion deduplicated documents (30 trillion tokens) from 84 CommonCrawl dumps across 5 languages (English, German, French, Spanish, Italian). Each document is pre-annotated with 40+ quality signals including perplexity scores, deduplication hashes, content classifiers, and toxicity ratings computed via a standardized pipeline. The architecture processes raw CommonCrawl HTML through text extraction, deduplication, and multi-dimensional quality scoring, enabling downstream users to apply custom filtering strategies without reprocessing the raw data.
Unique: Processes 84 CommonCrawl dumps (claimed as most complete coverage vs. C4, Refinedweb, Dolma, SlimPajama) with 40+ pre-computed quality annotations per document, enabling fine-grained data curation research without requiring users to reprocess raw CommonCrawl. Open-source processing scripts allow reproducibility and custom filtering strategies on a standardized base dataset.
vs alternatives: Larger scale (30 trillion tokens vs. C4's 156B tokens, RedPajama-1T's 1T tokens) with richer quality annotations (40+ signals vs. minimal metadata in competitors) and multilingual coverage, making it superior for comparative curation research and training diverse language models.
Implements deduplication across 100+ billion documents using hash-based matching to identify and remove duplicate content from CommonCrawl. The pipeline computes deduplication hashes for each document and filters the raw 100+ trillion token corpus down to 30 trillion deduplicated tokens. This approach preserves document boundaries (unlike token-level deduplication) and produces deterministic, reproducible results across reprocessing runs.
Unique: Uses document-level hash-based deduplication (preserving document boundaries) rather than token-level or fuzzy matching, enabling reproducible filtering and transparent deduplication hashes that users can inspect and verify. Processes 84 CommonCrawl dumps with consistent deduplication methodology.
vs alternatives: Document-level deduplication is more interpretable and reproducible than token-level approaches, and the published deduplication hashes enable users to understand and verify which documents were removed, unlike proprietary datasets that hide deduplication decisions.
Provides the entire 30 trillion token corpus, processing scripts, and quality annotations as free, open-source resources with no licensing restrictions. Users can download, modify, redistribute, and use the data for any purpose including commercial applications. This open approach enables broad research access and community-driven improvements without vendor lock-in.
Unique: Provides complete 30 trillion token corpus with processing scripts as free, open-source resources with no licensing restrictions, whereas competitors (C4, RefinedWeb) may have usage restrictions or require commercial licensing
vs alternatives: Eliminates licensing costs and vendor lock-in through open-source distribution, enabling broad access for academic and commercial use versus competitors with restricted access or licensing requirements
Computes perplexity scores for each document using a reference language model, enabling quantitative assessment of text quality and language model fitness. The perplexity metric measures how well a pre-trained model predicts the document; lower perplexity indicates higher-quality, more coherent text. These pre-computed scores allow users to filter documents by quality threshold without running inference themselves, and to study the relationship between perplexity and downstream model performance.
Unique: Pre-computes perplexity scores for 100+ billion documents, eliminating the computational cost of running inference for quality assessment. Enables comparative studies of how perplexity thresholds affect training outcomes without requiring users to implement their own scoring pipeline.
vs alternatives: Provides pre-computed perplexity scores (eliminating inference cost) whereas competitors like C4 use heuristic filters (URL patterns, line-ending ratios); perplexity is a more principled, model-based quality metric but requires understanding of the reference model used.
Annotates each document with content classifiers and toxicity ratings, enabling category-based filtering and safety-aware data curation. The pipeline applies pre-trained classifiers to categorize document content (e.g., news, forums, documentation) and compute toxicity scores. These annotations are pre-computed and stored with each document, allowing users to filter by content type or toxicity threshold without running inference themselves.
Unique: Pre-computes both content classifiers and toxicity ratings for 100+ billion documents, enabling multi-dimensional safety and content-based filtering without requiring users to implement or run their own classifiers. Supports comparative studies of how content filtering affects model behavior.
vs alternatives: Provides pre-computed toxicity and content annotations (eliminating inference cost) whereas most web datasets require downstream filtering; enables safety-aware curation at scale without custom classifier implementation.
Publishes end-to-end processing scripts on GitHub that convert raw CommonCrawl HTML to deduplicated, annotated documents. The pipeline is fully open-source, enabling users to understand, verify, and reproduce the data processing methodology. Scripts handle HTML-to-text conversion, deduplication, quality signal computation, and filtering, allowing researchers to reprocess data with custom parameters or apply the same methodology to new CommonCrawl dumps.
Unique: Publishes complete, open-source processing scripts enabling full reproducibility and transparency of data processing methodology. Users can inspect, verify, and reapply the pipeline to new data, unlike proprietary datasets where processing is opaque.
vs alternatives: Open-source pipeline enables reproducibility and auditability vs. proprietary datasets (C4, Refinedweb) where processing methodology is proprietary or partially documented; enables research on data processing methodology itself.
Enables users to apply custom filtering strategies by combining 40+ pre-computed quality signals (perplexity, toxicity, content classifiers, deduplication hashes, etc.). Rather than providing pre-filtered 'ready-to-train' datasets, RedPajama v2 provides the raw signals and lets users define their own filtering logic. This architecture supports comparative studies of curation strategies and enables organizations to apply domain-specific or value-aligned filtering without reprocessing the base dataset.
Unique: Provides 40+ pre-computed quality signals enabling fine-grained, user-defined curation strategies rather than pre-filtered datasets. This architecture supports comparative research on curation methodology and enables organizations to apply custom filtering without reprocessing the base dataset.
vs alternatives: Enables comparative curation research (studying how different filtering strategies affect outcomes) whereas competitors provide pre-filtered datasets; gives users control over filtering logic but requires more implementation effort.
Provides 30 trillion tokens across 5 languages (English, German, French, Spanish, Italian) with consistent quality signal annotations applied uniformly across all languages. The architecture processes each language through the same deduplication, quality scoring, and classification pipeline, enabling comparative studies of language-specific data characteristics and training multilingual models on a standardized base dataset. Language-specific processing details are not documented, but the consistent annotation methodology enables cross-language analysis.
Unique: Provides 30 trillion tokens across 5 languages with identical quality signal annotations, enabling comparative studies of language-specific data characteristics and training multilingual models on a standardized base. Consistent annotation methodology across languages enables cross-language analysis.
vs alternatives: Larger multilingual coverage (5 languages, 30 trillion tokens) than RedPajama-1T (English-only, 1 trillion tokens) and most competitors; consistent annotation enables comparative language research, but limited to European languages vs. competitors with broader language coverage.
+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 RedPajama v2 at 61/100.
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