| Ecosystem |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 8 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Provides 64K prompts with responses from multiple LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Claude, Llama, etc.) annotated with preference judgments across four orthogonal dimensions: helpfulness, honesty, instruction-following, and truthfulness. Each prompt has multiple response pairs with comparative ratings, enabling fine-grained preference learning that captures nuanced trade-offs between model behaviors rather than single-axis ranking.
Unique: Explicitly decomposes preference feedback into four independent dimensions (helpfulness, honesty, instruction-following, truthfulness) rather than collapsing into a single reward signal, allowing models to learn trade-offs and enabling analysis of which behaviors matter most for different use cases. This architectural choice enables training models that can balance competing objectives rather than optimizing for a single monolithic preference.
vs alternatives: More granular than single-axis preference datasets (like HHRLHF) because it captures orthogonal dimensions of quality, enabling researchers to study and optimize for specific behavioral trade-offs rather than assuming all preferences align on one axis.
Systematically collects responses to identical prompts from 4+ diverse LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Claude, Llama, etc.) with different architectures, training procedures, and capability profiles. Responses are paired and annotated to enable comparative analysis of how model families differ in their approach to the same task, supporting contrastive learning and model behavior analysis.
Unique: Deliberately includes responses from heterogeneous model families (closed-source like GPT-4, open-source like Llama, different architectures) rather than variants of a single model, enabling analysis of fundamental differences in how different training approaches produce different behaviors on identical tasks.
vs alternatives: Richer than single-model preference datasets because it captures how different model families approach problems differently, enabling contrastive learning and model behavior analysis that wouldn't be possible with responses from only one model family.
Enables filtering and stratifying the 64K prompts by preference dimension (helpfulness, honesty, instruction-following, truthfulness) to create task-specific subsets where one dimension dominates. Supports extracting prompts where models disagree on a specific dimension while agreeing on others, enabling targeted training on particular behavioral objectives without confounding signals from other dimensions.
Unique: Provides explicit dimension labels on preference judgments, enabling dataset consumers to filter and stratify by specific behavioral objectives rather than treating all preferences as equivalent. This allows training models optimized for particular use cases without confounding signals from unrelated dimensions.
vs alternatives: More flexible than monolithic preference datasets because it enables task-specific subset creation and objective-aligned training, whereas generic preference datasets force you to train on all dimensions simultaneously or manually re-annotate data.
Provides preference data in standardized formats compatible with RLHF and DPO training pipelines, including prompt-response pairs, preference rankings, and dimension-specific scores serialized as JSON or Parquet. Data is pre-processed to remove duplicates, handle edge cases (empty responses, encoding errors), and normalize formatting across different LLM outputs, reducing preprocessing overhead for training teams.
Unique: Pre-processes and serializes preference data in formats directly compatible with popular RLHF/DPO training frameworks (TRL, DeepSpeed), eliminating custom ETL work. Data is normalized across different LLM outputs (handling encoding issues, duplicates, edge cases) before serialization, reducing preprocessing burden on training teams.
vs alternatives: Saves weeks of data engineering work compared to raw preference data because it's already formatted for standard training frameworks, whereas raw preference datasets require custom parsing, validation, and format conversion before use in training pipelines.
The 64K prompts span multiple task categories (writing, math, reasoning, coding, QA, etc.) with varying complexity levels and instruction styles. Enables analysis of how preference patterns differ across task types and complexity levels, supporting evaluation of whether trained models generalize across diverse task distributions or overfit to specific prompt characteristics.
Unique: Includes 64K prompts spanning multiple task categories and complexity levels, enabling analysis of whether preference patterns are task-agnostic or task-specific. This diversity supports evaluation of model generalization across diverse distributions rather than overfitting to a narrow task distribution.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than task-specific preference datasets because it covers multiple task types in a single dataset, enabling analysis of generalization and task-specific preference patterns without requiring separate datasets for each task category.
Captures response quality variance by collecting responses from multiple LLMs with different capability levels (GPT-4 as high-quality baseline, GPT-3.5 and Claude as mid-tier, Llama as open-source baseline) to the same prompts. Enables quantification of how much response quality varies across models and identification of prompts where models diverge significantly, supporting analysis of model capability gaps and preference learning robustness.
Unique: Includes responses from models with intentionally different capability levels (GPT-4 vs Llama-7B), enabling quantification of quality variance and identification of prompts where models diverge. This variance is preserved in the dataset rather than normalized away, supporting analysis of preference learning robustness to quality variation.
vs alternatives: More informative than preference datasets with responses from similar-capability models because it captures quality variance across the capability spectrum, enabling analysis of whether preference learning methods are robust to variation in response quality or sensitive to specific model pairs.
Preference annotations are provided with implicit consistency information through multiple response pairs per prompt and dimension-specific ratings. Enables analysis of annotation consistency by examining whether annotators agree on preference rankings across different response pairs from the same prompt, and whether dimension-specific ratings are internally consistent (e.g., does a response rated high on 'honesty' also score high on 'truthfulness').
Unique: Provides multiple response pairs per prompt with dimension-specific ratings, enabling implicit consistency analysis through pattern matching across pairs. While not providing explicit inter-rater agreement statistics, the multi-pair structure enables inference of annotation consistency and identification of ambiguous or potentially mislabeled examples.
vs alternatives: More transparent about annotation quality than single-annotation datasets because multiple response pairs per prompt enable consistency checking, whereas single-annotation datasets provide no mechanism to identify or filter low-confidence annotations.
Explicitly captures prompts and responses where instruction-following and truthfulness are in tension (e.g., a prompt asking for false information, or requesting a response in a specific format that conflicts with accuracy). Enables training models to learn principled trade-offs between competing objectives rather than blindly optimizing for one dimension, supporting development of models that can balance competing goals.
Unique: Explicitly includes dimension-specific ratings that enable identification of prompts where instruction-following and truthfulness are in tension, allowing analysis and training on trade-off scenarios. This supports development of models that learn principled trade-offs rather than blindly optimizing for a single objective.
vs alternatives: More nuanced than single-objective preference datasets because it captures trade-off scenarios where competing objectives conflict, enabling training of models that can balance competing goals rather than optimizing for one dimension at the expense of others.
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 UltraFeedback 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