| Ecosystem |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 9 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Aggregates 783 GB of source code across 86 programming languages from publicly available repositories, filtering exclusively for permissively licensed code (MIT, Apache 2.0, BSD, etc.) to ensure legal trainability. Uses license detection via SPDX identifiers and repository metadata scanning to validate licensing status at collection time, preventing inclusion of GPL or proprietary code that would create legal friction for downstream model training.
Unique: Explicit permissive-only licensing filter with SPDX validation at collection time, combined with opt-out mechanism for developers — most competing datasets (CodeSearchNet, GitHub-Code) lack developer opt-out and include mixed licensing
vs alternatives: Legally cleaner than CodeSearchNet (mixed GPL/proprietary) and more developer-respectful than GitHub-Code (no opt-out), making it safer for commercial model training
Applies two-stage deduplication: exact string matching to remove byte-for-byte duplicates, followed by near-deduplication using MinHash/Jaccard similarity (typically threshold ~0.85) to identify and remove near-identical code blocks that differ only in whitespace, comments, or minor variable renames. This reduces redundancy while preserving legitimate code diversity, preventing the model from overweighting common boilerplate or copy-pasted snippets.
Unique: Two-stage deduplication (exact + near) with MinHash-based similarity detection tuned for code semantics, rather than generic text deduplication — preserves code-specific patterns like function signatures while removing boilerplate
vs alternatives: More aggressive deduplication than CodeSearchNet (which uses only exact matching) and more code-aware than generic text dedup, reducing training data size by ~30-40% while maintaining diversity
Scans the entire 783 GB corpus for PII patterns including email addresses, IP addresses (IPv4/IPv6), API keys, private keys, and other sensitive credentials using regex-based pattern matching and entropy-based detection. Redacts or removes identified PII before dataset release, protecting developer privacy and preventing accidental exposure of secrets in the training data that could be memorized and leaked by the model.
Unique: Multi-pattern PII detection combining regex (emails, IPs, common key formats) with entropy-based heuristics for unknown credential types, applied at scale across 783 GB — most code datasets lack systematic PII redaction
vs alternatives: More comprehensive PII redaction than CodeSearchNet (which has minimal redaction) and more transparent than GitHub-Code (which does not publish redaction methodology)
Extracts and preserves code cells and markdown text from Jupyter notebooks as interleaved sequences, maintaining the pedagogical structure where explanatory text precedes or follows code blocks. This allows models trained on the dataset to learn the relationship between natural language documentation and code implementation, improving code generation quality when models can reference explanatory context.
Unique: Explicit preservation of Jupyter notebook structure with code-text interleaving, treating notebooks as a distinct data modality rather than converting to pure code — most code datasets discard notebooks or flatten them to code-only
vs alternatives: Enables training on code-documentation pairs in natural pedagogical order, unlike CodeSearchNet (code-only) or generic web crawls (text-only), improving models' ability to generate documented code
Provides a mechanism for developers to request exclusion of their repositories from the dataset, respecting developer autonomy and addressing concerns about code being used for AI training without consent. Maintains an opt-out registry that is checked during dataset construction and updates, allowing developers to remove their code retroactively or prevent future inclusion.
Unique: Explicit opt-out mechanism respecting developer autonomy, treating code as owned by developers rather than purely public data — most competing datasets (GitHub-Code, CodeSearchNet) lack opt-out mechanisms
vs alternatives: More ethically transparent than GitHub-Code (no opt-out) and addresses developer concerns about consent, though less comprehensive than full opt-in models
Organizes and represents code across 86 programming languages, applying language-specific parsing and tokenization strategies to preserve syntactic structure. Enables downstream models to learn language-specific patterns (e.g., Python indentation, Rust ownership, JavaScript async/await) rather than treating all code as generic text, improving language-specific code generation quality.
Unique: Explicit language-specific representation across 86 languages with language-aware tokenization, rather than treating code as generic text — enables models to learn language idioms and syntax-specific patterns
vs alternatives: More comprehensive language coverage (86 languages) than CodeSearchNet (~10 languages) and more language-aware than generic code datasets, improving multilingual code generation
Incorporates GitHub issues and Git commit messages alongside source code, providing natural language context about code changes, bug fixes, and feature requests. This allows models to learn the relationship between code changes and their motivations, improving code generation quality by training on examples where code is paired with explanatory intent.
Unique: Explicit inclusion of GitHub issues and commit messages as paired context with code, treating them as first-class training data rather than metadata — enables models to learn code-intent relationships
vs alternatives: Richer contextual training than code-only datasets (CodeSearchNet, GitHub-Code) by pairing code with natural language intent, improving models' ability to generate code that addresses specific issues
Implements distributed processing pipeline for 783 GB of code using frameworks like Spark or Ray, enabling efficient deduplication, PII redaction, and language detection across multiple machines. Provides streaming/chunked access patterns (Hugging Face Datasets format) to allow downstream users to load and process the dataset without requiring full 783 GB in memory, using lazy evaluation and batch processing.
Unique: Distributed processing pipeline with Hugging Face Datasets integration for streaming access, enabling efficient handling of 783 GB without full in-memory loading — most competing datasets require downloading entire corpus
vs alternatives: More scalable than CodeSearchNet (requires full download) and more flexible than GitHub-Code (no streaming API), enabling efficient training on resource-constrained hardware
+1 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 StarCoder Data 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