| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 8 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Leverages GPT-4V's vision capabilities to generate 1.2 million high-quality image captions by systematically processing diverse image sources through OpenAI's multimodal API. The dataset captures detailed visual descriptions including objects, spatial relationships, text within images, and contextual understanding that GPT-4V produces, enabling training data that reflects advanced vision-language reasoning rather than simple alt-text or crowd-sourced labels.
Unique: Uses GPT-4V (not CLIP, BLIP, or human annotators) to generate captions at 1.2M scale, capturing advanced visual reasoning including spatial relationships, text recognition, and contextual understanding that simpler captioning models cannot produce. The dataset represents GPT-4V's interpretation of images rather than crowd-sourced or rule-based alternatives.
vs alternatives: Provides richer, more detailed captions than COCO or Flickr30K (human-annotated but simpler) and captures reasoning depth comparable to GPT-4V itself, making it ideal for training models that need to match GPT-4V-level understanding rather than basic object detection.
Organizes 1.2 million image-caption pairs into a structured, downloadable dataset with consistent metadata formatting and versioning. The curation process involves collecting diverse image sources, filtering for quality, and pairing them with GPT-4V-generated captions in a standardized format (likely JSON Lines or similar) that enables efficient batch loading and sampling for training pipelines.
Unique: Provides a pre-curated 1.2M image-caption dataset with GPT-4V captions already generated and organized, eliminating the need for users to run expensive GPT-4V API calls themselves. The dataset is versioned and publicly available, enabling reproducible research and reducing barrier to entry for vision-language model training.
vs alternatives: Larger and more detailed than COCO Captions (123K images) or Flickr30K (31K images) while providing GPT-4V-quality descriptions; more accessible than building custom datasets via API calls, which would cost thousands of dollars.
Enables direct integration with popular vision-language model training frameworks by providing image-caption pairs in formats compatible with PyTorch DataLoaders, Hugging Face Datasets, and similar tools. The dataset structure supports efficient batching, sampling, and augmentation workflows, allowing researchers to load and iterate over 1.2M pairs without custom preprocessing logic.
Unique: Provides 1.2M pre-paired image-caption examples in a format directly compatible with modern vision-language training frameworks, eliminating custom data pipeline development. The scale and quality of captions (GPT-4V-generated) enable training models that match or exceed GPT-4V's visual understanding capabilities.
vs alternatives: Larger and more detailed than ad-hoc datasets assembled from web scraping; more cost-effective than generating captions via API; more standardized than proprietary datasets used in academic papers, enabling reproducible research.
Supplies image-caption pairs optimized for training models that learn joint multimodal embeddings (e.g., CLIP-style contrastive learning). The GPT-4V captions provide rich semantic information that enables models to learn fine-grained visual-semantic alignments beyond simple object labels, supporting training of embedding spaces that capture complex visual concepts and relationships.
Unique: Provides 1.2M image-caption pairs with GPT-4V-generated descriptions that capture semantic nuance and visual reasoning, enabling training of embedding spaces that understand complex visual concepts beyond simple object detection. The caption quality directly improves embedding space granularity and semantic alignment.
vs alternatives: Richer captions than COCO or Flickr30K enable learning more nuanced embeddings; larger scale than typical academic datasets; GPT-4V quality captions provide semantic depth that simple alt-text or crowd-sourced labels cannot match.
Aggregates images from diverse sources and domains with GPT-4V captions that describe visual content in domain-agnostic language, enabling training of vision-language models that generalize across different image types (photographs, diagrams, screenshots, artwork, etc.). The diversity of sources and GPT-4V's ability to describe varied visual content supports models that perform well on out-of-distribution images.
Unique: Aggregates 1.2M images from diverse sources with GPT-4V captions that describe visual content in domain-agnostic language, enabling training of models that generalize across image types. The scale and diversity of sources, combined with GPT-4V's ability to describe varied visual content, support robust cross-domain understanding.
vs alternatives: Larger and more diverse than single-domain datasets (e.g., medical imaging, satellite imagery); GPT-4V captions provide domain-agnostic descriptions that support generalization better than domain-specific labels; enables training models that work across multiple visual domains without retraining.
Supports filtering and extracting domain-specific subsets from the 1.2M image-caption corpus based on metadata tags, caption keywords, image sources, or custom criteria. The curation pipeline enables creation of specialized datasets for particular use cases (e.g., medical imaging, product photography, landscape images) without requiring manual annotation, by leveraging existing metadata and caption content.
Unique: Enables systematic curation of domain-specific subsets from 1.2M images using GPT-4V captions as semantic filters, allowing extraction of specialized datasets without manual domain annotation or external labeling services
vs alternatives: More flexible than fixed domain-specific datasets (e.g., medical imaging datasets) which are typically small and expensive to create; leverages rich caption semantics for more accurate domain filtering than keyword-based approaches
Provides infrastructure for evaluating the quality of GPT-4V-generated captions against alternative caption sources (human-annotated, other vision models) using metrics like BLEU, METEOR, CIDEr, SPICE, or semantic similarity. Enables quantitative assessment of caption quality and comparison with baseline datasets, supporting research on synthetic vs. human-generated training data.
Unique: Provides systematic benchmarking of 1.2M GPT-4V captions against human-annotated baselines and alternative vision models, enabling quantitative validation that synthetic captions are suitable for training without manual quality assessment
vs alternatives: More rigorous than anecdotal quality claims; enables data-driven decisions about synthetic vs. human caption usage, unlike datasets that simply assert caption quality without comparative evaluation
Supports augmentation and transformation of image-caption pairs (e.g., image resizing, caption paraphrasing, synthetic negative pair generation) to increase dataset diversity and robustness for training. The pipeline enables creating multiple variants of each image-caption pair through deterministic transformations, improving model generalization without requiring additional annotation.
Unique: Enables systematic augmentation of 1.2M image-caption pairs through deterministic transformations, increasing effective training data size and diversity without requiring additional annotation or API calls
vs alternatives: More efficient than collecting additional images; augmentation strategies are tailored for vision-language tasks (e.g., generating hard negatives) rather than generic image augmentation
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 ShareGPT4V 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