| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 13 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Annotates each benchmark problem with its release date from source platforms (LeetCode, AtCoder, Codeforces), enabling detection of data contamination by comparing model performance across temporal cohorts. When a model's performance drops sharply at its training cutoff date, it indicates earlier problems were likely in training data. This design allows researchers to identify which models have been exposed to benchmark problems during pretraining without requiring explicit data audits.
Unique: Uses temporal annotation of problems from live competitive platforms as a built-in contamination detector rather than relying on external audits or data provenance tracking. DeepSeek models showed 'stark drop in performance on LeetCode problems released since September 2023' (their release date), demonstrating the mechanism's effectiveness at identifying exposure to benchmark data.
vs alternatives: More practical than static benchmarks like HumanEval because it continuously incorporates new problems post-dated after model training, making contamination immediately detectable through performance degradation rather than requiring retrospective data audits.
Automatically or semi-automatically ingests new coding problems from active competitive programming platforms (LeetCode, AtCoder, Codeforces) with release date metadata, maintaining a rolling window of 300+ problems spanning May 2023 to February 2024 and beyond. Problems are curated for quality and difficulty distribution, then integrated into the benchmark evaluation pipeline with standardized input/output formats and test case extraction.
Unique: Treats competitive programming platforms as live data sources rather than static snapshots, with automated or semi-automated ingestion pipelines that preserve release date metadata. This enables the benchmark to grow continuously and stay ahead of model training cutoffs, unlike static benchmarks that become stale within months of release.
vs alternatives: Outpaces static benchmarks like HumanEval (165 problems, last updated 2021) by continuously incorporating new problems from active platforms, making it harder for models to memorize solutions and enabling contamination detection through temporal analysis.
Provides open-source code repository and data access for the benchmark, enabling researchers to reproduce evaluation results, extend the benchmark with new problems or scenarios, and run local evaluations without relying on a centralized service. Code repository includes evaluation scripts, problem parsing logic, and leaderboard infrastructure. Data access includes problem statements, test cases, and evaluation results, enabling offline analysis and custom evaluation pipelines.
Unique: Provides open-source infrastructure for benchmark evaluation and data access, enabling reproducibility and community contributions. This is less common than closed leaderboards and supports the benchmark's goal of maintaining integrity through transparency.
vs alternatives: More transparent and reproducible than closed benchmarks like OpenAI's Evals because it provides open-source code and data, enabling independent verification and community contributions.
Organizes benchmark problems by difficulty levels and categories (implied from competitive programming problem taxonomies), enabling evaluation of model performance across problem subsets. Allows analysis of whether models perform consistently across difficulty levels or show degradation on harder problems. Enables targeted evaluation of specific problem categories (e.g., dynamic programming, graph algorithms, string manipulation) to identify capability gaps.
Unique: Enables stratified analysis of model performance across difficulty levels and problem categories, revealing whether models have consistent capability or show degradation on harder problems. This level of detail is not provided by single-metric benchmarks.
vs alternatives: More granular than aggregate leaderboards because it enables analysis of performance across problem subsets, revealing capability gaps that aggregate metrics might hide.
Automatically updates the public leaderboard as new problems are added to the benchmark and models are re-evaluated against the expanded problem set. This ensures the leaderboard reflects the current benchmark state and prevents models from achieving artificially high scores on a fixed problem set. The continuous update mechanism is enabled by the automated problem ingestion pipeline and evaluation infrastructure.
Unique: Implements continuous leaderboard updates as problems are added, preventing benchmark stagnation and gaming; most benchmarks (HumanEval, MBPP) use static problem sets with infrequent updates
vs alternatives: Continuous updates ensure leaderboard reflects current benchmark state and prevent gaming; static benchmarks become outdated and contaminated as model training data grows
Evaluates models across four distinct code-related scenarios: (1) free-form code generation from problem descriptions, (2) self-repair of broken code, (3) test output prediction without execution, and (4) code execution with result validation. Each scenario tests different aspects of code understanding and generation, with separate scoring and leaderboard rankings. Models are ranked differently across scenarios, revealing capability gaps (e.g., Claude-3-Opus excels at test output prediction but not code generation).
Unique: Decomposes code capability into four orthogonal scenarios rather than treating code generation as a monolithic task. This reveals that model rankings are scenario-dependent (Claude-3-Opus beats GPT-4-Turbo on test output prediction but not code generation) and that some models overfit to generation benchmarks while failing at reasoning tasks like output prediction.
vs alternatives: More comprehensive than single-scenario benchmarks like HumanEval because it tests code understanding (output prediction), repair (self-repair), and execution validation in addition to generation, exposing capability gaps that single-metric benchmarks miss.
Evaluates code generation by allowing models multiple attempts to produce a correct solution (pass@k metric), where k typically ranges from 1 to 10. A problem is marked as 'passed' if any of the k generated solutions produces correct output on all test cases. This metric accounts for the stochastic nature of LLM generation and rewards models that can explore solution space diversity, rather than penalizing single-attempt failures.
Unique: Applies pass@k metric from prior code generation benchmarks (HumanEval, MBPP) to LiveCodeBench's continuously-updated problem set, enabling fair comparison of models with different generation strategies while accounting for sampling variance inherent in LLM outputs.
vs alternatives: More realistic than pass@1 metrics because it acknowledges that LLMs generate stochastically and users can sample multiple times; more fair than fixed-temperature evaluation because it doesn't penalize models with higher generation diversity.
Executes generated code against a suite of test cases extracted from competitive programming problems, comparing actual output to expected output with exact string matching or semantic equivalence checking. Execution occurs in a controlled environment (sandboxing details unknown) with timeout and resource limits to prevent infinite loops or resource exhaustion. Problems are marked as 'passed' only if generated code produces correct output on all test cases.
Unique: Integrates code execution as a core evaluation component rather than relying solely on static analysis or LLM-based correctness prediction. This enables objective, reproducible evaluation of code correctness without manual review, leveraging test cases from competitive programming problems that are designed to catch common errors.
vs alternatives: More rigorous than LLM-based code review because it executes code against actual test cases rather than asking another LLM to judge correctness; more comprehensive than syntax-only validation because it catches logic errors and edge case failures.
+5 more capabilities
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 LiveCodeBench at 65/100.
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