| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 8 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
SQuAD 2.0 provides 150,000 questions on Wikipedia articles paired with extractive answer spans, plus 50,000 adversarially-constructed unanswerable questions that appear answerable but lack supporting evidence in the passage. Models must learn to recognize when a question cannot be answered from the given context by predicting a special null token, forcing systems to develop genuine reading comprehension rather than surface-level pattern matching. The dataset uses crowdsourced question generation followed by adversarial filtering to ensure unanswerable questions are plausible but genuinely unanswerable.
Unique: Pioneered the adversarial unanswerable question pattern (50K questions) that forces models to learn when NOT to answer, rather than just extracting spans. This 'know when you don't know' requirement fundamentally changed QA model architecture from simple span prediction to answerability classification + span extraction pipelines.
vs alternatives: More challenging than earlier SQuAD 1.1 (which had no unanswerable questions) and more naturally-constructed than synthetic QA datasets, making it the de facto standard for evaluating whether models develop genuine reading comprehension vs. pattern matching.
SQuAD 2.0 uses a two-stage crowdsourcing pipeline: workers first generate questions about Wikipedia passages, then independent workers verify and filter questions for quality, clarity, and answerability. The dataset includes only questions that passed inter-annotator agreement thresholds, ensuring consistent, high-quality question-answer pairs. This human-in-the-loop approach produces naturally-phrased questions that reflect how humans actually ask about text, rather than template-based or synthetic generation.
Unique: Two-stage crowdsourcing with independent verification workers ensures question quality without requiring expert annotators. The filtering process removes ambiguous or poorly-formed questions, creating a high-confidence gold standard that downstream models can reliably train on.
vs alternatives: More rigorous quality control than single-pass crowdsourcing (e.g., MS MARCO) and more scalable than expert annotation, balancing cost and quality for a 150K+ question dataset.
SQuAD 2.0 generates 50,000 unanswerable questions through a specialized crowdsourcing process: workers read a passage and a question, then write a plausible question that CANNOT be answered from that passage. These adversarially-constructed questions are then validated to ensure they are genuinely unanswerable (no answer span exists) while remaining semantically similar to answerable questions. This forces models to learn the boundary between questions that have answers in context vs. those that don't, rather than always predicting an answer span.
Unique: Pioneered adversarial unanswerable questions in QA benchmarks by having crowdworkers explicitly write questions that CANNOT be answered from a passage. This is fundamentally different from randomly sampling unanswerable questions; adversarial construction ensures questions are plausible but genuinely unanswerable.
vs alternatives: More challenging than datasets with random negative examples (e.g., MS MARCO) because adversarial questions require models to understand semantic relevance, not just keyword matching, to distinguish answerable from unanswerable.
SQuAD 2.0 represents answers as exact character-level spans within the passage (start and end character indices), enabling precise evaluation of whether models extract the correct answer substring. This span-based representation is language-agnostic and avoids tokenization ambiguities; answers are defined by their exact position in the raw text. The dataset includes multiple valid answer spans when crowdworkers identified different valid answers (e.g., 'United States' vs. 'US'), allowing flexible evaluation.
Unique: Uses character-level span indexing rather than token-level, making answers independent of tokenization choices. This enables fair comparison across models with different tokenizers and avoids off-by-one errors from token boundaries.
vs alternatives: More precise than free-form answer generation (which requires BLEU/ROUGE metrics) and more tokenizer-agnostic than token-level span prediction, enabling reproducible evaluation across different model architectures.
SQuAD 2.0 includes a human performance baseline (89.5% F1 score) computed by measuring inter-annotator agreement: one annotator's answers are evaluated against another's using the same F1/EM metrics applied to model predictions. This human ceiling enables researchers to measure how close models are to human-level performance. The public leaderboard tracks model submissions, allowing researchers to compare their systems against state-of-the-art and identify performance gaps.
Unique: Establishes human performance as an inter-annotator agreement baseline (89.5% F1) rather than assuming 100% accuracy, acknowledging that some questions are genuinely ambiguous. This realistic ceiling helps researchers understand the true upper bound of the task.
vs alternatives: More rigorous than datasets with arbitrary human baselines; SQuAD 2.0's human F1 is computed using the same metrics as model evaluation, enabling direct comparison and preventing artificial performance gaps.
SQuAD 2.0 selects 442 Wikipedia articles across diverse topics (history, science, sports, etc.) and extracts passages of 100-200 tokens from each article. Passages are preprocessed to remove formatting artifacts, preserve sentence boundaries, and ensure sufficient context for question answering. The selection process aims for topical diversity while maintaining passage quality and answerability, creating a representative corpus for reading comprehension evaluation.
Unique: Selects passages from 442 diverse Wikipedia articles rather than a single domain, ensuring topical diversity. Passage length (100-200 tokens) is standardized to provide sufficient context without overwhelming models, balancing realism with tractability.
vs alternatives: More diverse than domain-specific QA datasets (e.g., BioASQ for biomedical QA) and more controlled than web-scale QA datasets (e.g., MS MARCO), providing a balanced benchmark of encyclopedic knowledge.
SQuAD 2.0 is designed as a fine-tuning benchmark for pre-trained language models: the dataset format (passage + question → answer span) directly maps to transformer model architectures (e.g., BERT, RoBERTa) that predict start/end token positions. The dataset includes standard train/dev splits (130K/12K questions) enabling reproducible fine-tuning experiments. Integration with HuggingFace datasets library enables one-line loading and automatic preprocessing (tokenization, padding, batching).
Unique: Designed specifically for transformer-based fine-tuning: the span-based answer format (start/end token indices) directly maps to BERT-style token classification heads, enabling efficient fine-tuning without custom architectures. HuggingFace integration provides automatic tokenization and batching.
vs alternatives: More accessible than building custom QA pipelines from scratch; HuggingFace integration enables fine-tuning in <50 lines of code, compared to manual data loading and preprocessing for other datasets.
While SQuAD 2.0 itself is English-only and Wikipedia-focused, it serves as a reference benchmark for evaluating transfer learning: researchers use SQuAD 2.0 performance as a baseline to measure how well models transfer to other languages (via XQuAD, MLQA) or domains (via NewsQA, NaturalQuestions). The standardized metrics (F1, EM) and fixed splits enable reproducible transfer evaluation, allowing researchers to quantify domain shift and cross-lingual degradation.
Unique: Serves as a reference baseline for measuring transfer learning: the standardized metrics and fixed splits enable reproducible comparison of how models degrade when applied to other languages or domains, quantifying the cost of domain shift.
vs alternatives: More useful as a transfer baseline than domain-specific datasets because its English-Wikipedia focus is well-understood; researchers can isolate domain/language effects by comparing SQuAD 2.0 performance to target domain performance.
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 SQuAD 2.0 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