| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 11 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Executes text generation using a 1.1 billion parameter transformer model with 22 layers, 32 attention heads organized via Grouped Query Attention (4 query groups), 2048 embedding dimension, and 2048 token sequence length. Implements the same tokenizer and architectural patterns as Llama 2, enabling direct compatibility with Llama ecosystem tools while maintaining 10-15x smaller memory footprint than 13B+ models. Supports both base pretrained checkpoints (trained on up to 3 trillion tokens) and supervised fine-tuned chat variants for conversational tasks.
Unique: Achieves 3 trillion token pretraining in ~90 days on 16 A100s through optimized training pipeline (24k tokens/sec/GPU throughput, 56% model FLOPS utilization) while maintaining Llama 2 tokenizer and architecture compatibility, enabling seamless integration into existing Llama ecosystems without custom tooling
vs alternatives: Smaller than Llama 2 7B (10x fewer parameters) with comparable reasoning capability due to 3x larger training dataset, and faster to deploy than Phi-2 or Mistral 7B on edge hardware while maintaining better instruction-following than TinyLlama's predecessors (Pythia-1.1B)
Implements a training pipeline that releases model checkpoints at 7 progressive stages (105B, 503B, 1T, 1.5T, 2T, 2.5T, 3T tokens) with corresponding performance metrics (commonsense reasoning scores tracked via MMLU-style benchmarks). Uses cosine learning rate schedule (4e-4 initial, 2000 warmup steps) with 2M token batch size (2048 sequence length × 1024 batch size) across 16 A100-40G GPUs. Enables researchers to analyze scaling laws and select optimal checkpoint for downstream fine-tuning without retraining from scratch.
Unique: Releases 7 intermediate checkpoints with tracked performance metrics (commonsense reasoning scores) enabling empirical scaling law analysis without requiring full retraining, combined with optimized distributed training achieving 24k tokens/sec/GPU throughput (56% model FLOPS utilization) — higher than Pythia-1.1B's equivalent throughput
vs alternatives: More transparent scaling trajectory than Llama 2 (which released only final model), and faster training efficiency than Pythia-1.1B (3,456 vs 4,830 GPU hours for 300B tokens) due to optimized batch size and learning rate schedule
Releases all 7 base model checkpoints with complete training configuration (hyperparameters, data sources, hardware setup, learning rate schedule) documented in README and EVAL.md, enabling full reproducibility of training process and checkpoint selection. Configuration includes batch size (2M tokens), learning rate (4e-4 with cosine schedule, 2000 warmup steps), hardware (16 A100-40G GPUs), and data composition (7:3 NL:code ratio), allowing researchers to reproduce training or adapt methodology for custom models.
Unique: Publishes complete training configuration (hyperparameters, data sources, hardware, learning rate schedule) with all 7 intermediate checkpoints, enabling full reproducibility and methodological transparency — rare for open-source models which often omit training details
vs alternatives: More reproducible than Llama 2 (which omits some training details), and more transparent than Mistral (which provides minimal training documentation)
Applies instruction-tuning and chat fine-tuning to base pretrained checkpoints using supervised learning on curated instruction-response pairs, producing chat-optimized variants (Chat-v0.1, v0.3, v0.4) derived from 503B, 1T, and 1.5T token base models respectively. Maintains Llama 2 chat template format (system/user/assistant role markers) enabling drop-in compatibility with existing chat inference frameworks. Fine-tuned models show measurable improvement in instruction adherence and conversational coherence compared to base models (e.g., Chat-v0.4 achieves 52.30 commonsense score vs 51.28 for base 1.5T model).
Unique: Provides pre-fine-tuned chat variants (v0.1, v0.3, v0.4) derived from specific base checkpoints with published performance metrics, enabling users to select optimal base model before fine-tuning rather than tuning all checkpoints — reduces experimentation cost by 70%+ vs training from scratch
vs alternatives: Smaller fine-tuning overhead than Llama 2 7B chat (LoRA rank 8 sufficient vs rank 16-32 for larger models), and maintains Llama 2 chat template compatibility unlike Mistral-7B-Instruct (which uses different format)
Supports multiple quantization backends (llama.cpp with GGUF format, vLLM with AWQ/GPTQ, bitsandbytes 4-bit/8-bit) enabling inference on consumer GPUs and CPUs with 4-8x memory reduction. Achieves 71.8 tokens/sec on Mac M2 with 4-bit quantization (batch size 1) and 7,094.5 tokens/sec on A40 GPU with batch size 100 in vLLM, demonstrating practical inference speeds across hardware tiers. Quantization applied post-training without retraining, enabling rapid deployment across diverse hardware without custom optimization per device.
Unique: Achieves practical inference speeds across 3+ quantization backends (llama.cpp GGUF, vLLM AWQ/GPTQ, bitsandbytes) without custom optimization per backend, with published benchmarks (71.8 tok/sec M2, 7,094.5 tok/sec A40) enabling informed hardware selection before deployment
vs alternatives: Faster CPU inference than Llama 2 7B via llama.cpp (due to smaller model size), and lower memory footprint than Mistral 7B for equivalent batch inference (4-bit TinyLlama ~2GB vs 4-bit Mistral ~4GB)
Implements speculative decoding (draft model + verification) where TinyLlama acts as a fast draft model to generate candidate tokens, verified against a larger model (e.g., Llama 2 7B) to maintain output quality while reducing wall-clock latency. Leverages TinyLlama's fast inference speed (7k+ tokens/sec on A40) to generate multiple candidate tokens per step, with verification rejecting invalid candidates and accepting valid ones, reducing effective latency by 30-50% for batch inference workloads compared to direct large model inference.
Unique: Leverages TinyLlama's 10x smaller size and 10x faster inference speed as draft model for speculative decoding, enabling 30-50% latency reduction for batch inference while maintaining output quality of larger models — unique positioning as draft model rather than standalone inference
vs alternatives: More practical than self-speculative decoding (using same model for draft/verify) due to TinyLlama's speed advantage, and lower memory overhead than ensemble methods (two models vs three+)
Implements Grouped Query Attention with 32 attention heads organized into 4 query groups (8 heads per group), reducing KV cache memory from O(batch_size × seq_len × num_heads × head_dim) to O(batch_size × seq_len × num_groups × head_dim). This architectural choice reduces KV cache size by 8x compared to full multi-head attention while maintaining comparable model quality, enabling larger batch sizes and longer sequences on memory-constrained hardware. GQA is applied uniformly across all 22 transformer layers, making it integral to TinyLlama's efficiency profile.
Unique: Applies GQA uniformly across all 22 layers with 4 query groups (8 heads per group), reducing KV cache by 8x while maintaining Llama 2 architecture compatibility — enables TinyLlama to achieve 7k+ tokens/sec batch inference on A40 where full-attention 1.1B model would require 2x memory
vs alternatives: More aggressive KV cache reduction than Llama 2 (which uses full multi-head attention), and simpler than Multi-Query Attention (MQA) with single KV head, providing better balance between memory efficiency and model quality
Uses identical tokenizer to Llama 2 (32k token vocabulary, BPE-based) enabling seamless token-level compatibility with existing Llama ecosystem tools, datasets, and inference frameworks. Tokenizer applied consistently across all training stages (pretraining, fine-tuning, inference) and across all checkpoint variants, ensuring reproducible token sequences and enabling direct comparison with Llama 2 benchmarks. Vocabulary alignment means TinyLlama can process Llama 2 datasets without re-tokenization and vice versa, reducing integration friction.
Unique: Maintains identical 32k vocabulary and BPE tokenization as Llama 2, enabling token-level compatibility across all TinyLlama checkpoints and variants without custom tokenizer — reduces integration complexity vs models with custom vocabularies
vs alternatives: Direct tokenizer compatibility with Llama 2 (unlike Mistral 7B which uses different vocabulary), enabling fair performance comparison and dataset reuse without re-tokenization
+3 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 TinyLlama 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