xCodeEval ranks higher at 67/100 vs C4 (Colossal Clean Crawled Corpus) at 59/100. Capability-level comparison backed by match graph evidence from real search data.
| Feature | C4 (Colossal Clean Crawled Corpus) | xCodeEval |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Dataset | Benchmark |
| UnfragileRank | 59/100 | 67/100 |
| Adoption | 1 | 1 |
| Quality |
| 1 |
| 1 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 8 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Processes 750GB of raw Common Crawl data through a multi-stage heuristic filtering pipeline that removes short pages (threshold-based length filtering), deduplicates at the sentence level using string matching or probabilistic techniques, filters offensive content via keyword/pattern matching, and restricts output to English-language documents. The filtering approach uses rule-based heuristics rather than learned classifiers, making it deterministic and reproducible across dataset versions.
Unique: Uses deterministic heuristic-based filtering (length thresholds, keyword matching, language detection) applied at scale to 750GB of Common Crawl, enabling reproducible dataset creation without learned classifiers; includes sentence-level deduplication to remove redundant training examples
vs alternatives: More transparent and reproducible than learned filtering approaches; larger and more thoroughly deduplicated than raw Common Crawl, but less sophisticated than newer datasets like Fineweb that use neural classifiers for quality scoring
Extends the core English C4 dataset with a multilingual variant covering 108 languages, applying the same heuristic filtering and deduplication pipeline across non-English documents. Language detection and filtering are applied per-language, with separate dataset splits for each language or combined multilingual batches. This enables training of multilingual models on a standardized, cleaned corpus without requiring separate language-specific curation.
Unique: Applies consistent heuristic filtering and deduplication across 108 languages using language-agnostic rules, enabling direct comparison of data quality and model performance across languages without language-specific tuning
vs alternatives: Broader language coverage than most pre-training datasets; maintains consistency with English C4 filtering, but lacks language-specific quality signals that specialized multilingual datasets (e.g., OSCAR) may include
Provides a 'realnewslike' variant of C4 that filters documents to match the distribution and style of real news articles, enabling training of models on news-domain text without requiring separate news corpus collection. This variant applies domain-specific heuristics (e.g., article structure, publication patterns, temporal signals) to select documents that resemble news content, creating a curated subset suitable for news-focused model training or evaluation.
Unique: Applies domain-specific filtering heuristics to C4 to create a news-distribution-matched subset, enabling news-focused pre-training without separate news corpus collection; maintains consistency with C4 cleaning pipeline while adding domain-specific selection
vs alternatives: Simpler and more reproducible than collecting news from multiple sources; smaller and more focused than full C4, but may lack editorial quality and fact-checking standards of professional news datasets
Integrates with Hugging Face's datasets library to enable streaming download, local caching, and efficient batching of C4 data without requiring full dataset download upfront. Uses Apache Arrow format for columnar storage, supports lazy loading and on-demand access to specific splits/languages, and provides built-in caching mechanisms to avoid re-downloading. Integration with Hugging Face Hub enables version control, dataset card documentation, and community contributions.
Unique: Native integration with Hugging Face datasets library using Apache Arrow columnar format, enabling efficient streaming, lazy loading, and automatic caching without requiring full dataset materialization; supports version control and community contributions via Hub
vs alternatives: More convenient than manual Common Crawl download and processing; streaming capability reduces storage requirements vs. downloading full 750GB; less flexible than raw Common Crawl access but more curated and easier to use
Provides versioned dataset snapshots on Hugging Face Hub with detailed documentation (dataset cards, filtering methodology, statistics) enabling reproducible model training and benchmarking. Each version is immutable and tracked, allowing researchers to cite specific dataset versions in papers and reproduce results. Dataset cards include filtering heuristics, language coverage, deduplication statistics, and known limitations, facilitating transparent evaluation and comparison.
Unique: Provides immutable, versioned dataset snapshots with comprehensive documentation on Hugging Face Hub, enabling persistent citation and reproducible research; includes detailed dataset cards describing filtering methodology and known limitations
vs alternatives: More reproducible than raw Common Crawl access; better documented than most pre-training datasets; enables long-term research reproducibility through version control, but requires Hugging Face Hub infrastructure
Implements sentence-level deduplication across 750GB of text using probabilistic or exact-match techniques to identify and remove duplicate sentences within and across documents. This reduces redundancy in training data, improving model training efficiency and reducing overfitting to repeated patterns. Deduplication is applied during dataset construction, not at inference time, creating a cleaner training corpus without duplicated examples.
Unique: Applies sentence-level deduplication at scale across 750GB using deterministic techniques, removing redundant training examples while maintaining document structure; enables cleaner training data without requiring learned quality models
vs alternatives: More thorough than document-level deduplication; simpler and more reproducible than semantic deduplication approaches; reduces training data size but may miss near-duplicates that learned methods would catch
Filters offensive, inappropriate, or harmful content from C4 using keyword matching, pattern-based rules, and heuristic signals (e.g., profanity lists, known offensive phrases) applied during dataset construction. This creates a cleaner training corpus less likely to produce offensive model outputs, though heuristic filtering is inherently imperfect and may miss context-dependent offensiveness or allow some harmful content through.
Unique: Uses deterministic heuristic rules (keyword matching, pattern-based filtering) to remove offensive content at scale, enabling reproducible and transparent filtering without learned classifiers; applied during dataset construction rather than at inference time
vs alternatives: More transparent and reproducible than learned filtering approaches; simpler to implement and audit than neural classifiers; less sophisticated than context-aware filtering but faster and more deterministic
Removes documents shorter than a minimum length threshold (typically 100 words) to filter out low-quality, stub, or boilerplate content. This filtering is applied during corpus curation and reduces the proportion of short, low-information-density documents in the training corpus. The approach is simple and transparent but may remove legitimate short-form content like abstracts, summaries, or social media posts.
Unique: Uses simple, transparent length-based filtering (minimum 100 words) to remove low-quality stub content, making the filtering auditable and reproducible; most alternative corpora use more complex quality heuristics
vs alternatives: Simpler and more transparent than learned quality classifiers, but less effective at identifying low-quality content that is not simply short
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 C4 (Colossal Clean Crawled Corpus) 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