| Ecosystem |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 7 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Implements a quality-filtering pipeline that selects 200,000 high-quality conversations from a larger UltraChat corpus, using dual-agent generation (ChatGPT user + ChatGPT assistant roles) followed by diversity and coherence filtering. The curation process preserves multi-turn conversational structure across three semantic categories (factual Q&A, creative writing, task assistance) to ensure models learn contextual coherence and turn-taking patterns rather than single-exchange responses.
Unique: Uses dual-agent ChatGPT generation (user and assistant roles) with category-stratified sampling across three semantic domains, then applies quality filtering to create a balanced 200K subset — this synthetic-then-filtered approach differs from crowdsourced datasets (which have annotation overhead) and raw model outputs (which lack quality curation)
vs alternatives: Larger and more diverse than hand-annotated dialogue datasets (e.g., ShareGPT), yet more curated and category-balanced than raw model-generated conversation dumps, making it ideal for training models that generalize across multiple dialogue types
Organizes 200K conversations into three explicit semantic categories (world knowledge Q&A, creative writing, task assistance) and maintains stratified sampling during dataset construction to ensure models train on balanced representation across dialogue types. This categorical structure enables curriculum learning and category-specific fine-tuning while preventing mode collapse toward any single dialogue pattern.
Unique: Explicitly structures dataset into three semantic categories (world knowledge, creative, task assistance) with maintained stratification during curation, rather than treating all conversations as undifferentiated — this enables category-aware training strategies and prevents single-domain overfitting
vs alternatives: More structured than generic conversation datasets (e.g., raw Reddit or web scrapes) because category labels enable curriculum learning; more flexible than single-domain datasets because it covers multiple dialogue types in one corpus
Maintains full conversation history across multiple turns, encoding each exchange as a sequence of user-assistant pairs with explicit turn boundaries and context windows. The dataset structure preserves preceding turns as context for each response, enabling models to learn attention patterns over conversation history and implement proper context masking during training (preventing models from attending to future turns).
Unique: Explicitly preserves full conversation history as context for each turn, enabling models to learn attention patterns over multi-turn sequences — differs from single-turn datasets (which treat each exchange independently) and from datasets that truncate history to fixed windows
vs alternatives: Teaches context coherence better than single-turn Q&A datasets because models see full conversation history; more efficient than raw conversation dumps because it's pre-filtered for quality and coherence
Generates conversations by instantiating two ChatGPT instances in user and assistant roles, with each instance responding to the other's outputs in a turn-based loop. This dual-agent approach produces natural dialogue patterns and turn-taking behavior without manual annotation, while the role separation ensures both user queries and assistant responses are high-quality and contextually appropriate. The synthetic generation process scales to 200K conversations without human labeling overhead.
Unique: Uses dual-agent role-playing (ChatGPT as both user and assistant) to generate natural dialogue patterns without human annotation, then filters for quality — this differs from single-agent generation (which produces less natural turn-taking) and from crowdsourced datasets (which require human effort)
vs alternatives: Scales to 200K conversations faster and cheaper than human annotation; produces more natural dialogue than template-based generation; more diverse than single-domain datasets because it covers three semantic categories
Applies filtering and diversity constraints to the raw dual-agent generated conversations to remove low-quality, incoherent, or repetitive exchanges. The filtering process selects 200K conversations from a larger corpus based on implicit quality metrics (likely coherence, relevance, and turn-level consistency), ensuring the final dataset contains only high-quality examples suitable for instruction-tuning. Diversity constraints prevent mode collapse toward common conversation patterns.
Unique: Applies undocumented quality filtering and diversity constraints to synthetic conversations, selecting 200K from a larger corpus — this differs from raw synthetic datasets (which include all generated conversations) and from fully-annotated datasets (which have explicit quality labels)
vs alternatives: Higher quality than unfiltered synthetic data because low-quality conversations are removed; more transparent than proprietary datasets because it's open-source, though filtering criteria are still implicit
Formats conversations in a structure optimized for instruction-tuning, where each multi-turn dialogue serves as a training example with implicit instruction-response pairs. The dataset encodes conversations as sequences of user instructions followed by assistant responses, enabling models to learn instruction-following behavior through supervised next-token prediction on assistant turns while maintaining full conversation context.
Unique: Structures conversations as implicit instruction-response pairs within multi-turn context, enabling instruction-tuning while preserving conversational coherence — differs from single-turn instruction datasets (which lack context) and from generic dialogue datasets (which don't optimize for instruction-following)
vs alternatives: Better for instruction-following than generic dialogue datasets because structure is optimized for SFT; better for conversational coherence than single-turn instruction datasets because full context is preserved
Provides a fixed, curated 200K dialogue corpus that serves as a reproducible benchmark for evaluating instruction-tuned models' ability to maintain conversational coherence, follow instructions across turns, and generate contextually appropriate responses. The dataset enables standardized evaluation by providing a common training target and reference point for comparing model architectures, training procedures, and alignment techniques. This capability supports research reproducibility and enables fair comparison of dialogue models across different teams and organizations.
Unique: Provides a fixed, curated 200K dialogue corpus specifically designed as a training benchmark for instruction-tuned models, enabling reproducible comparison across different architectures and training approaches
vs alternatives: More standardized and reproducible than ad-hoc dialogue datasets, and more diverse than single-domain benchmarks by covering factual, creative, and task-assistance dialogue types
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 UltraChat 200K 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