| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 14 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Executes multimodal inference using a lightweight vision-language architecture (2B or 0.5B parameters) that combines a vision encoder for image understanding with a text decoder for natural language generation. The MoondreamModel class orchestrates vision encoding, text processing, and spatial reasoning subsystems through a unified query() interface, enabling efficient inference on edge devices and resource-constrained hardware without cloud dependencies.
Unique: Achieves sub-2B parameter count through aggressive architectural compression (vision encoder + text decoder fusion) while maintaining VQA and object detection capabilities; specifically optimized for overlap_crop_image() preprocessing to handle high-resolution inputs without memory explosion, enabling efficient processing on devices where larger models (7B+) are infeasible.
vs alternatives: Smaller and faster than CLIP+LLaMA stacks (which require 7B+ parameters) while supporting object detection natively; more capable than pure image classification models but with 10-50x fewer parameters than GPT-4V or Gemini.
Processes natural language questions about image content and generates contextually accurate answers by encoding the image through a vision encoder, fusing visual features with text embeddings, and decoding responses through transformer blocks. The system maintains spatial awareness through region encoding that maps pixel coordinates to semantic understanding, enabling answers about object locations, spatial relationships, and visual attributes without explicit bounding box annotations during inference.
Unique: Implements region encoding subsystem that maps pixel-level coordinates to semantic embeddings, enabling spatial reasoning without post-hoc bounding box detection; uses transformer cross-attention between vision and text embeddings to ground language generation in visual features, avoiding separate vision-text alignment modules.
vs alternatives: Faster and more memory-efficient than BLIP-2 or LLaVA for VQA tasks due to smaller parameter count; maintains spatial reasoning capabilities that pure image captioning models lack.
Exposes model capabilities through a command-line interface (CLI) that accepts image paths, queries, and output format specifications, enabling batch processing and integration into shell scripts or automation pipelines. The CLI handles image loading, model inference, and result formatting without requiring Python code, making the model accessible to non-Python developers and enabling easy integration into existing workflows.
Unique: CLI interface (sample.py and command-line entry points) abstracts model loading and inference, enabling batch processing and shell integration without Python knowledge; supports multiple output formats (text, JSON) for downstream processing.
vs alternatives: Simpler than writing custom Python scripts for batch processing; enables integration into existing shell-based workflows and CI/CD pipelines without additional tooling.
Enables precise spatial pointing by outputting pixel coordinates or normalized region coordinates for detected objects or regions of interest, leveraging the region encoder subsystem that maps visual features to coordinate embeddings. The system supports gaze detection (pointing to specific image regions) and coordinate-based queries, enabling applications that require precise spatial references without explicit bounding box annotations during training.
Unique: Region encoder subsystem directly outputs coordinate embeddings that map to pixel space, enabling end-to-end coordinate prediction without separate regression heads; coordinate transformations handle conversion between normalized and absolute coordinates, enabling flexible output formats.
vs alternatives: Integrated into single model without separate pointing or gaze detection modules; enables spatial reasoning without training custom coordinate regression networks.
Processes variable-resolution images through a vision encoder that uses overlap_crop_image() strategy to handle high-resolution inputs without exceeding memory constraints. The encoder divides large images into overlapping patches, encodes each patch independently, and combines results through a spatial attention mechanism. This approach enables processing of high-resolution documents and charts that would otherwise exceed GPU memory limits. The encoder outputs a compact feature representation suitable for downstream text generation.
Unique: Uses overlap_crop_image() strategy with spatial attention to combine patch features, enabling high-resolution processing without separate preprocessing or resolution reduction vs competitors using fixed-size inputs
vs alternatives: Handles variable-resolution inputs more efficiently than resizing to fixed dimensions, while maintaining spatial coherence better than simple patch concatenation
Generates natural language outputs through a transformer-based text encoder/decoder architecture. The encoder processes visual features and text prompts, while the decoder generates tokens autoregressively using standard transformer attention mechanisms. Supports configurable generation parameters (temperature, top-k, top-p sampling) for controlling output diversity and quality. The text processing subsystem integrates with the vision encoder through cross-attention, enabling grounded language generation that references visual content.
Unique: Integrates vision-text cross-attention directly in the decoder, enabling grounded generation that references visual features at each decoding step vs separate vision and language modules
vs alternatives: More efficient than LLM-based approaches (CLIP+GPT) for vision-grounded generation due to unified architecture, while maintaining flexibility through configurable generation parameters
Detects objects within images and outputs their spatial locations as pixel coordinates or normalized bounding boxes by leveraging the region encoder subsystem that transforms visual features into coordinate-aware embeddings. The system generates structured output (bounding box coordinates, confidence scores) through a specialized decoding path that interprets spatial tokens from the vision encoder, enabling precise object localization without requiring separate YOLO or Faster R-CNN models.
Unique: Region encoder subsystem maps visual features directly to coordinate embeddings without separate detection head; uses coordinate transformations to convert pixel-space outputs to normalized or absolute coordinates, enabling end-to-end detection without post-processing bounding box regression layers.
vs alternatives: Integrated into single model (no separate detection pipeline) and runs on edge devices; slower than optimized YOLO but requires no additional model loading or inference overhead.
Generates natural language descriptions of image content by encoding the full image through the vision encoder and decoding a sequence of text tokens via transformer blocks that attend to visual features. The system produces coherent, contextually relevant captions without explicit prompting, using the text decoder to generate descriptions that capture objects, actions, attributes, and spatial relationships present in the image.
Unique: Uses unified vision-text encoder architecture where image features are directly fused with text embeddings via cross-attention, avoiding separate caption generation heads; overlap_crop_image() preprocessing enables high-resolution image understanding by tiling overlapping patches, improving caption quality for detailed scenes.
vs alternatives: Faster inference than BLIP-2 or LLaVA due to smaller model size; maintains reasonable caption quality while running on edge devices where larger captioning models are infeasible.
+6 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 Moondream 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