| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 13 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Evaluates RAG pipeline quality by orchestrating multiple LLM-based metrics (faithfulness, answer relevancy, context precision/recall) through a unified evaluation pipeline that accepts only questions and ground-truth answers as input. Uses PydanticPrompt architecture with structured output parsing via Instructor adapter pattern to extract metric scores from LLM responses, with built-in retry logic and async execution via Executor pattern for batch processing.
Unique: Combines PydanticPrompt-based structured output extraction with Instructor adapter pattern for reliable LLM metric scoring, paired with async Executor pattern for efficient batch evaluation. Requires only questions and answers (not full retrieval traces), making it applicable to existing RAG systems without instrumentation changes.
vs alternatives: More practical than human evaluation (no annotation cost) and more interpretable than black-box ML-based metrics because each score is tied to explicit LLM reasoning via prompts.
Provides extensible metric system with base classes (Metric, SingleTurnMetric) supporting both built-in metrics and user-defined custom criteria via rubric-based evaluation. Metrics are composable into evaluation sets and execute through a unified pipeline with configurable LLM backends, prompt templates, and output parsing via PydanticPrompt architecture with error recovery mechanisms.
Unique: Metric system uses inheritance hierarchy (Metric → SingleTurnMetric → specific implementations) with PromptMixin for dynamic prompt management and Instructor adapter for structured output. Supports metric training/alignment workflows to calibrate custom metrics against human judgments.
vs alternatives: More flexible than fixed metric suites because metrics are composable Python objects with pluggable LLM backends, enabling domain-specific evaluation without forking the framework.
Centralizes evaluation configuration via RunConfig system managing LLM selection, embedding models, timeout settings, retry policies, and cost tracking parameters. Enables per-evaluation customization without code changes, with support for environment variable overrides and configuration files. RunConfig propagates settings through evaluation pipeline to all metrics and LLM calls.
Unique: RunConfig system centralizes configuration with environment variable overrides and cost tracking, enabling reproducible evaluation across environments. Configuration propagates through evaluation pipeline to all components.
vs alternatives: More maintainable than scattered configuration because RunConfig centralizes settings, and cost tracking is built-in rather than external.
Extends evaluation beyond single-turn RAG to support multi-turn conversations and agent traces via specialized metric types (MultiTurnMetric, AgentMetric) and sample schemas. Handles message history, tool calls, and agent actions as evaluation context, enabling assessment of conversational coherence, tool use correctness, and multi-step reasoning. Metrics can access full conversation history for context-aware scoring.
Unique: MultiTurnMetric and AgentMetric classes extend base metric system to handle conversation history and agent traces. Metrics can access full conversation context for coherence and consistency assessment.
vs alternatives: More capable than single-turn metrics because multi-turn metrics understand conversation context and can assess coherence across turns.
Integrates with observability platforms (Langfuse, etc.) via a tracing adapter pattern that logs evaluation events (metric computations, LLM calls, results) to external systems. Metrics can emit structured events that are automatically captured and sent to configured observability backends. Enables real-time monitoring of evaluation runs, cost tracking across multiple evaluations, and debugging of metric behavior through detailed trace logs. Integration is optional and transparent — evaluation works without observability configuration.
Unique: Implements observability as an optional, pluggable adapter that doesn't require code changes to enable. Metrics emit structured events that are automatically captured and routed to configured backends, enabling transparent monitoring.
vs alternatives: More flexible than built-in logging because it supports multiple observability platforms; more transparent than manual instrumentation because the framework handles event emission automatically.
Executes evaluation across large datasets using async/await pattern via Executor abstraction, supporting parallel metric computation with configurable concurrency limits. Integrates cost tracking via RunConfig system that logs token usage and API costs per metric, with callback hooks for real-time progress monitoring and results persistence. Supports both sync (evaluate) and async (aevaluate) entry points with identical semantics.
Unique: Executor abstraction decouples evaluation logic from concurrency strategy, enabling swappable implementations (ThreadPoolExecutor, AsyncExecutor, custom). RunConfig system centralizes cost tracking with per-metric token accounting and callback hooks for observability.
vs alternatives: More scalable than synchronous evaluation because async/await pattern prevents blocking on LLM API calls, and cost tracking is built-in rather than bolted on via external logging.
Abstracts LLM provider differences through LLM factory and adapter pattern, supporting OpenAI, Anthropic, Ollama, and custom providers via litellm integration. Adapters (Instructor, litellm) handle provider-specific structured output formats and API conventions, with unified interface for message passing, streaming, and error handling. Supports both sync and async LLM calls with built-in retry logic and caching.
Unique: Adapter pattern (Instructor, litellm) decouples metric logic from provider-specific APIs, enabling metrics to work with any LLM backend. Instructor adapter uses Pydantic models for schema-driven structured output with automatic validation and error recovery.
vs alternatives: More flexible than hardcoded OpenAI integration because adapters abstract provider differences, and Pydantic-based validation ensures metric scores are always properly typed.
Generates synthetic evaluation datasets (questions, answers, contexts) from source documents using TestsetGenerator with configurable synthesizers and transformations. Uses LLM-based generation with knowledge graph construction to ensure diversity and coverage, supporting both single-turn and multi-turn conversation synthesis. Integrates with test data validation to filter low-quality synthetic samples.
Unique: TestsetGenerator uses knowledge graph construction from source documents combined with LLM-based synthesis to ensure generated questions cover diverse document aspects. Supports configurable synthesizers and transformations for fine-grained control over data generation.
vs alternatives: More principled than random question generation because knowledge graph ensures coverage, and LLM synthesis produces natural language questions rather than templates.
+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 Ragas at 58/100.
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