| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 6 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Provides 1,000 expert-annotated QA pairs where each question-answer pair is grounded in PubMed abstract text with ternary labels (yes/no/maybe) plus long-form explanations. The dataset uses a structured format linking each answer to specific evidence spans within the source abstract, enabling models to learn evidence-based reasoning rather than pattern matching. Supports training systems that must justify clinical claims with cited research.
Unique: Combines expert-annotated gold standard (1,000 pairs) with artificially generated training data (211,000 pairs) using template-based generation from PubMed abstracts, enabling large-scale training while maintaining expert validation on a subset. The ternary label scheme (yes/no/maybe) with long-form explanations captures nuance in biomedical evidence that binary classification cannot express.
vs alternatives: Larger and more specialized than general QA datasets like SQuAD, with domain-specific expert annotation and evidence-grounding requirements that better reflect real clinical reasoning tasks than generic reading comprehension benchmarks
Enables training models to assess whether a specific biomedical claim is supported, contradicted, or inconclusive based on evidence from PubMed abstracts. The dataset structures this as a claim-verification task where models must read an abstract and determine if it supports a posed claim, outputting both a categorical judgment and a textual justification. This directly supports fact-checking and claim validation workflows in medical AI systems.
Unique: Structures claim verification as a three-way classification problem (yes/no/maybe) rather than binary, reflecting the reality that research evidence often neither fully supports nor refutes claims but instead provides inconclusive or conditional evidence. Pairs each judgment with a natural language explanation grounded in the abstract.
vs alternatives: More specialized for biomedical claim verification than general fact-checking datasets like FEVER, with domain-specific labels and evidence types that reflect how medical researchers actually assess evidence quality
Provides a large-scale dataset (211,000 total pairs) suitable for multi-task learning and transfer learning in biomedical NLP, combining 1,000 expert-validated pairs with 211,000 automatically generated pairs. The mixed quality enables training robust models that can handle both high-confidence expert annotations and noisier synthetic data, simulating real-world scenarios where labeled data is scarce but unlabeled or weakly-labeled data is abundant. Supports curriculum learning strategies where models train on expert data first, then synthetic data.
Unique: Explicitly combines expert-annotated and synthetically-generated data at scale (211x ratio), enabling research into how models learn from mixed-quality data sources. The large synthetic component (211,000 pairs) provides sufficient scale for pre-training while the expert subset (1,000 pairs) serves as a validation anchor for quality assessment.
vs alternatives: Larger and more domain-specific than general multi-task NLP datasets, with a deliberate mix of expert and synthetic data that better reflects real-world data scarcity in biomedical domains compared to purely expert-annotated benchmarks
Supports training models to perform reading comprehension over biomedical abstracts where answers are not simple spans but require abstractive reasoning and explanation generation. Each QA pair includes a long-form explanation that synthesizes information from the abstract rather than copying text directly, training models to understand and paraphrase biomedical concepts. This enables systems that can explain research findings in natural language rather than just retrieving evidence.
Unique: Pairs each QA decision with a long-form natural language explanation that requires abstractive reasoning rather than span extraction, training models to understand and paraphrase biomedical concepts. The explanation grounding forces models to learn semantic relationships between claims and evidence rather than surface-level pattern matching.
vs alternatives: More challenging than extractive QA datasets like SQuAD because it requires explanation generation, better preparing models for real-world clinical scenarios where justifications must be communicated to stakeholders
Functions as a standardized benchmark for evaluating how well language models can perform evidence-based reasoning on biomedical research questions. The dataset includes a held-out test set with expert annotations, enabling reproducible evaluation of model performance on a well-defined task. Supports systematic comparison of different model architectures, training approaches, and fine-tuning strategies on a consistent biomedical reasoning task.
Unique: Provides a standardized benchmark specifically designed for biomedical reasoning with expert-validated test set (1,000 pairs), enabling reproducible evaluation of language models on evidence-based reasoning tasks. The ternary label scheme captures nuance in biomedical evidence that binary benchmarks cannot express.
vs alternatives: More specialized for biomedical reasoning than general QA benchmarks like GLUE or SuperGLUE, with domain-specific labels and evidence requirements that better reflect real clinical reasoning challenges
Provides a benchmark for evaluating how well models trained on general-domain language understanding transfer to biomedical reasoning tasks. The dataset enables comparison of pre-trained models (BERT, GPT, etc.) versus domain-specific models (SciBERT, BioBERT) on evidence-based reasoning, measuring the performance gap and identifying which architectural choices or pre-training objectives best suit biomedical question answering.
Unique: Explicitly designed to measure domain-specific pre-training value by comparing general-purpose models fine-tuned on biomedical data against domain-specific pre-trained models, isolating the contribution of biomedical pre-training objectives
vs alternatives: More rigorous than informal model comparisons because it uses standardized splits and metrics, enabling reproducible evaluation of domain adaptation effectiveness across different model families
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 PubMedQA at 60/100.
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