| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 8 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Processes raw code from The Stack (a 3TB+ dataset) through a multi-stage filtering pipeline that applies near-deduplication heuristics (likely MinHash or similar probabilistic techniques) to identify and remove near-identical code blocks across 86 programming languages. The curation preserves language-specific semantics while reducing redundancy, enabling models trained on this data to learn diverse coding patterns rather than memorizing repetitive boilerplate. Outputs a deduplicated 250GB subset suitable for model pretraining.
Unique: Applies probabilistic near-deduplication at scale across 86 languages with language-aware filtering, rather than simple string matching or language-agnostic hashing. Integrates GitHub issues and commits as additional code context, not just raw source files.
vs alternatives: Larger and more diverse than CodeSearchNet (14 languages, 6M examples) and more aggressively deduplicated than raw The Stack, striking a balance between scale and training efficiency that Codex/GPT-4 datasets don't publicly expose.
Applies automated PII (Personally Identifiable Information) detection and removal across the dataset, scanning for patterns like email addresses, API keys, credentials, and personal names embedded in code comments or strings. Uses regex-based and potentially ML-based classifiers to identify sensitive data, then either redacts or removes affected code samples. This ensures the resulting dataset is safe for public distribution and model training without leaking private information.
Unique: Applies PII removal at dataset curation time (before public release) rather than relying on downstream model guardrails, reducing the risk of sensitive data being memorized during training. Scope includes not just code but GitHub issues and commits, which often contain more PII than source files.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than CodeSearchNet (which doesn't explicitly address PII) and more proactive than relying on model-level filtering, reducing legal/compliance risk for organizations using the dataset.
Implements heuristic-based quality filtering to exclude low-quality, malformed, or non-functional code samples from the dataset. Likely uses metrics such as: file size thresholds (excluding very small or very large files), syntax validity checks (parsing code to ensure it's well-formed), license filtering (excluding code with restrictive licenses), and potentially code complexity or style metrics. Filters are applied per-language to respect language-specific conventions (e.g., Python indentation rules vs. JavaScript semicolons).
Unique: Applies language-aware quality filtering (respecting syntax rules for each of 86 languages) rather than language-agnostic heuristics. Integrates license detection to ensure legal compliance, not just code quality.
vs alternatives: More rigorous than CodeSearchNet (which uses simpler heuristics) and more transparent than proprietary datasets like Codex (which don't publish filtering criteria). Balances quality with diversity better than hand-curated datasets.
Provides code samples across 86 programming languages with language-aware metadata and tokenization support. Each sample is tagged with its language, enabling downstream models to learn language-specific patterns and syntax. The dataset structure supports efficient loading and batching of code by language, allowing models to train on language-balanced or language-specific subsets. Tokenization is deferred to the model training pipeline, but the dataset preserves raw code to enable flexible tokenizer choices.
Unique: Explicitly supports 86 languages with language-aware metadata, enabling models to learn language-specific syntax and patterns. Preserves raw code rather than pre-tokenizing, allowing flexible tokenizer choices downstream.
vs alternatives: Broader language coverage than CodeSearchNet (14 languages) and more flexible than pre-tokenized datasets like Codex, enabling researchers to experiment with different tokenization strategies and language-specific fine-tuning.
Augments raw code samples with GitHub metadata including issue descriptions, commit messages, and code change history. This provides semantic context for code snippets, enabling models to learn the relationship between code changes and their motivations/descriptions. The dataset likely includes paired examples of (code, issue description) or (code change, commit message), enriching the training signal beyond syntax-only learning. Enables training on code-to-text and text-to-code tasks simultaneously.
Unique: Integrates GitHub issues and commits as first-class dataset components, not just raw code. Enables training on code-to-text and text-to-code tasks simultaneously, providing richer semantic context than code-only datasets.
vs alternatives: More contextual than CodeSearchNet (which includes only code and docstrings) and more comprehensive than synthetic code datasets. Closer to real-world development workflows where code changes are motivated by issues/requirements.
Provides versioned snapshots of the curated dataset with reproducible train/validation/test splits, enabling researchers to compare results across experiments and publications. Uses deterministic splitting logic (likely based on file hashes or fixed random seeds) to ensure the same code samples appear in the same splits across different downloads. Metadata includes dataset version, curation date, and filtering parameters, enabling reproducibility and ablation studies.
Unique: Provides versioned, reproducible splits with transparent curation metadata, enabling researchers to understand exactly which code samples were used and how they were selected. Supports ablation studies on filtering steps.
vs alternatives: More reproducible than ad-hoc dataset creation and more transparent than proprietary datasets like Codex. Enables fair comparison across research papers and models trained on the same data.
Implements streaming-based data loading via Hugging Face Datasets library, enabling researchers to train on the full 250GB dataset without downloading it entirely upfront. Uses lazy loading and on-the-fly batching to load code samples into memory as needed, reducing storage requirements and enabling training on machines with limited disk space. Supports efficient sampling, shuffling, and filtering operations without materializing the full dataset.
Unique: Leverages Hugging Face Datasets streaming API to enable training on 250GB without full download, using on-the-fly batching and caching. Abstracts away distributed I/O complexity.
vs alternatives: More efficient than downloading the full dataset upfront and more practical than local curation for researchers with limited resources. Comparable to other Hugging Face datasets but with larger scale (250GB vs. typical 10-50GB).
Enables fine-grained control over dataset composition by language, allowing researchers to sample code by language distribution, exclude specific languages, or oversample underrepresented languages. Provides language-stratified sampling to ensure balanced training across languages or language-specific fine-tuning. Metadata includes language distribution statistics, enabling informed decisions about dataset composition.
Unique: Provides language-stratified sampling and filtering across 86 languages, enabling researchers to control dataset composition by language. Includes language distribution statistics for informed sampling decisions.
vs alternatives: More flexible than fixed-composition datasets and more comprehensive than language-specific datasets. Enables researchers to study the impact of language diversity on code model performance.
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 StarCoderData 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