| Ecosystem |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 12 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Transcribes audio in 98 languages to text in the original language using a Transformer sequence-to-sequence architecture trained on 680,000 hours of diverse internet audio. The system uses mel spectrogram feature extraction via FFmpeg integration, processes audio through an AudioEncoder that generates embeddings, then applies an autoregressive TextDecoder with task-specific tokens to produce language-native transcriptions. Language-specific models (e.g., tiny.en, base.en) optimize for English-only workloads with reduced parameter count.
Unique: Unified multitasking Transformer model replaces traditional multi-stage speech pipelines (VAD → language detection → ASR → post-processing) with single forward pass; trained on 680K hours of internet audio providing robustness to background noise, accents, and technical speech unlike studio-trained competitors
vs alternatives: Outperforms Google Cloud Speech-to-Text and Azure Speech Services on non-English languages and noisy audio due to diverse training data; open-source allows local deployment without API latency or privacy concerns
Translates non-English speech directly to English text in a single forward pass using the same Transformer architecture as transcription, but with a translation task token prepended to the decoder input. The model learns to skip intermediate transcription and generate English output directly from audio embeddings, avoiding cascading errors from intermediate transcription steps. Supports 98 source languages translating to English only.
Unique: Direct audio-to-English translation without intermediate transcription step — the decoder learns to skip source language text generation and output English directly, reducing error propagation and latency compared to cascade approaches (transcribe → translate)
vs alternatives: Faster and more accurate than Google Translate + Google Speech-to-Text pipeline because it avoids intermediate transcription errors; open-source allows offline deployment unlike cloud translation APIs
Normalizes variable-length audio to exactly 30 seconds via `whisper.pad_or_trim()`: audio shorter than 30 seconds is padded with silence (zeros) to reach 30 seconds, audio longer than 30 seconds is trimmed to first 30 seconds. This ensures consistent input shape (80×3000 mel spectrogram) for the model, avoiding shape mismatches and enabling batch processing. Padding strategy is simple zero-padding rather than sophisticated techniques like repetition or interpolation.
Unique: Simple zero-padding strategy is computationally efficient and deterministic, but acoustically naive — alternative approaches (silence detection, repetition) not implemented in base library
vs alternatives: Simpler than librosa-based preprocessing with sophisticated padding; deterministic behavior aids reproducibility; zero-padding is fast but may introduce artifacts vs more sophisticated techniques
Returns transcription results as structured JSON objects containing: transcribed text, language code, duration, segments (with timing and text), and optional confidence metrics. The `model.transcribe()` API returns a dictionary with keys like 'text' (full transcript), 'language' (detected language), 'segments' (list of segment objects with start/end times and text). This structured format enables downstream processing (subtitle generation, database storage, API responses) without string parsing.
Unique: Structured output format is built into high-level API rather than requiring manual parsing — segments include timing and text, enabling direct use for subtitle generation or timeline-based applications
vs alternatives: More structured than raw text output; less detailed than forced alignment tools that provide phoneme-level information; JSON format is language-agnostic and integrates easily with web APIs
Detects the spoken language in audio by processing mel spectrograms through the AudioEncoder and using a language classification head that outputs probability distributions over 98 supported languages. The model leverages 680K hours of multilingual training data to recognize language characteristics from acoustic features alone, without requiring transcription. Language detection occurs as a preliminary step in the transcription pipeline and can be called independently via the language detection task token.
Unique: Language detection is integrated into the same Transformer model as transcription/translation via task tokens, allowing shared AudioEncoder computation and single model load — not a separate classifier, reducing memory footprint and inference overhead
vs alternatives: More accurate than acoustic-only language identification (e.g., librosa-based approaches) because it leverages semantic understanding from 680K hours of training; faster than transcription-based detection (identify language from first few words) because it uses acoustic features directly
Provides six model variants (tiny 39M, base 74M, small 244M, medium 769M, large 1550M, turbo 809M) with different parameter counts, VRAM requirements (1-10GB), and inference speeds (10x-1x relative to large). Each size trades accuracy for speed — tiny runs ~10x faster but with ~5-10% lower WER (word error rate), while large provides best accuracy at 10GB VRAM cost. Turbo variant (809M params) optimizes large-v3 for 8x speedup with minimal accuracy loss but lacks translation support.
Unique: Discrete model size family with published speed/accuracy/VRAM tradeoff matrix allows developers to make informed selection based on deployment constraints; turbo variant represents architectural optimization (knowledge distillation or pruning) achieving 8x speedup with <5% accuracy loss, distinct from simply using smaller base model
vs alternatives: More transparent tradeoff options than Whisper API (single model) or competitors like Deepgram (proprietary size selection); open-source allows local benchmarking on own hardware rather than relying on vendor performance claims
Automatically segments audio longer than 30 seconds into overlapping windows, processes each window independently through the transcription pipeline, and merges results with overlap handling to produce seamless full-length transcripts. The system uses `whisper.pad_or_trim()` to normalize each segment to exactly 30 seconds (padding with silence if needed), then applies the decoder to each segment and concatenates outputs while managing word-level boundaries and timestamp continuity across segment edges.
Unique: Sliding window approach with automatic overlap and boundary handling is built into high-level `model.transcribe()` API — developers don't manually implement segmentation, unlike lower-level APIs that require explicit window management
vs alternatives: Simpler than building custom segmentation logic; more robust than naive concatenation because it handles word-level boundary issues; faster than streaming approaches because it processes segments in parallel on GPU
Generates precise word-level timestamps (start and end times in milliseconds) for each word in the transcript by leveraging the decoder's attention weights and token alignment information. The system maps output tokens back to audio frames using the attention mechanism, then converts frame indices to millisecond timestamps based on the mel spectrogram hop length (20ms per frame). Timestamps are returned as part of the structured output alongside transcribed text.
Unique: Word-level timestamps are derived from attention weight alignment rather than separate timestamp prediction head — leverages existing decoder computation without additional model parameters, but introduces ±100-200ms uncertainty from frame quantization
vs alternatives: More granular than segment-level timestamps (which only mark 30-second boundaries); less accurate than forced alignment tools (e.g., Montreal Forced Aligner) but requires no phonetic lexicon or manual annotation
+4 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 Whisper Large v3 at 59/100.
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