| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 7 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Generates diverse instruction-following examples by prompting GPT-3.5 Turbo (text-davinci-003) with seed instructions and iteratively expanding the dataset through batch decoding of 20 instructions at once. Uses a simplified Self-Instruct pipeline that removes classification/non-classification distinctions, producing 52K unique instruction-input-output triplets with minimal human annotation. The approach demonstrates that a single API call budget (~$500) can create training data sufficient for 7B model instruction-tuning.
Unique: Simplified Self-Instruct pipeline using batch decoding of 20 instructions per API call instead of sequential generation, reducing API overhead while maintaining diversity. Removes classification task distinction, treating all instructions uniformly for simpler pipeline implementation.
vs alternatives: Cheaper and faster than manual annotation or crowdsourcing (52K examples for $500), and more reproducible than hand-curated datasets while maintaining quality sufficient for 7B model instruction-tuning.
Defines a canonical JSON schema for instruction-following examples with three fields: instruction (task description), input (optional context), and output (expected response). This simple, language-agnostic format became the de facto standard for all subsequent instruction-tuning datasets. The schema is minimal enough to support diverse task types (classification, generation, reasoning) while structured enough for reproducible fine-tuning pipeline integration.
Unique: Three-field schema (instruction, input, output) is deliberately minimal and language-agnostic, avoiding task-specific metadata that would limit generalization. This simplicity enabled rapid adoption across 100+ derivative datasets without format negotiation.
vs alternatives: More flexible than task-specific schemas (e.g., QA-only formats) and simpler than multi-turn conversation formats, making it the lowest-friction standard for instruction-tuning dataset composition.
Fine-tunes Meta's LLaMA-7B base model on the 52K instruction dataset using Hugging Face Transformers with configurable memory optimization techniques. Supports three optimization strategies: Fully Sharded Data Parallel (FSDP) for distributed training, DeepSpeed with CPU offloading for single-GPU training, and Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) for parameter-efficient fine-tuning. Uses fixed hyperparameters (batch size 128, learning rate 2e-5, 3 epochs, max sequence length 512) optimized for 7B models to fit within typical GPU memory constraints.
Unique: Provides three distinct memory optimization paths (FSDP, DeepSpeed+CPU offload, LoRA) with unified training script, allowing practitioners to choose based on available hardware. Hyperparameters (batch 128, lr 2e-5, 3 epochs) are empirically validated for 7B models and published for reproducibility.
vs alternatives: More accessible than raw PyTorch training loops because it abstracts FSDP/DeepSpeed complexity, and more memory-efficient than naive fine-tuning through built-in optimization support, enabling 7B instruction-tuning on consumer-grade GPUs.
Enables reconstruction of the full Alpaca model by combining the original LLaMA-7B weights with a published weight differential (delta). The recovery process converts Meta's LLaMA weights to Hugging Face format, then applies the delta to reconstruct the fine-tuned Alpaca weights. This approach circumvents direct distribution of fine-tuned weights by leveraging the mathematical property that fine_tuned_weights = base_weights + delta, allowing users to recover the model while respecting Meta's LLaMA licensing constraints.
Unique: Uses weight delta distribution (fine_tuned = base + delta) to enable model sharing under licensing constraints, allowing users with LLaMA access to recover full Alpaca weights from a small delta file. This mathematical approach became a standard pattern for distributing fine-tuned models.
vs alternatives: More legally compliant than direct fine-tuned weight distribution while more practical than requiring users to fine-tune from scratch. Reduces distribution bandwidth by ~99% compared to full weight files while maintaining reproducibility.
Defines two prompt templates for model inference depending on whether optional input context is provided. For instructions with input, wraps the instruction and input in a structured format with explicit section headers (### Instruction, ### Input, ### Response). For instructions without input, uses a simplified template with only instruction and response sections. These templates were used during training and must be replicated during inference to maintain consistency with the fine-tuned model's learned formatting expectations.
Unique: Two-template design (with/without input) is minimal but sufficient for most instruction-following tasks. Templates use explicit section headers (### Instruction, ### Input, ### Response) that became a de facto standard in subsequent instruction-tuned models.
vs alternatives: Simpler than chat-based templates (no role/system prompts) but more structured than raw text, providing clear task boundaries that help the model distinguish instruction from context without adding complexity.
During dataset generation, the Self-Instruct pipeline samples diverse instructions from the growing pool to avoid redundancy and ensure coverage across task types. The simplified Alpaca pipeline removes the original Self-Instruct distinction between classification and non-classification tasks, treating all instructions uniformly. Diversity is maintained through batch decoding (generating 20 instructions per API call) and iterative sampling from the existing pool to seed new instruction generation, creating a balanced distribution across task types without explicit task categorization.
Unique: Achieves diversity through implicit sampling during batch generation rather than explicit task categorization. Simplified pipeline removes classification/non-classification distinction, reducing pipeline complexity while maintaining empirical diversity through iterative sampling.
vs alternatives: Simpler than original Self-Instruct's task-based categorization while achieving comparable diversity through batch decoding. More scalable than manual curation because diversity emerges from the generation process rather than requiring post-hoc filtering.
Evaluates the fine-tuned Alpaca-7B model on instruction-following tasks using human evaluation and comparison to GPT-3.5 Turbo (text-davinci-003). The evaluation framework assesses model responses on dimensions like instruction adherence, factuality, and helpfulness. Preliminary results show Alpaca-7B achieves comparable performance to text-davinci-003 on instruction-following tasks despite being 50x smaller, demonstrating the effectiveness of instruction-tuning for capability transfer.
Unique: Demonstrates that a 7B model fine-tuned on 52K synthetic examples can match 175B text-davinci-003 performance on instruction-following tasks, establishing the empirical foundation for the instruction-tuning paradigm. Evaluation is qualitative (human judgment) rather than quantitative, reflecting the subjective nature of instruction-following quality.
vs alternatives: More credible than synthetic metrics because it uses human evaluation, but less reproducible than automated benchmarks. Comparison to text-davinci-003 provides a clear performance anchor that motivated subsequent instruction-tuning research.
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 Stanford Alpaca 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