| 0 |
| 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| Capabilities | 9 decomposed | 13 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Aggregates over 1 million authentic user conversations with ChatGPT and GPT-4 captured through a research chatbot interface, preserving full conversation threads with metadata including timestamps, user demographics (country, browser type), and conversation-level toxicity annotations. The dataset captures genuine, unfiltered user intents across diverse domains without synthetic generation or prompt engineering, enabling analysis of actual AI usage patterns in production environments.
Unique: Captures unfiltered, real-world conversations from production ChatGPT/GPT-4 deployments rather than synthetic or crowdsourced data, preserving authentic user intents, failure modes, and edge cases with demographic metadata (country, browser) enabling stratified analysis across user populations
vs alternatives: Larger scale (1M+ conversations) and more authentic than crowdsourced datasets like ShareGPT, with explicit demographic metadata absent from most open conversation corpora, though less curated and safety-filtered than instruction-tuning datasets like FLAN or Alpaca
Enables filtering and analysis of conversations by user demographics (country, browser type) and conversation-level metadata, allowing researchers to slice the dataset by geographic region, device type, or other user attributes. The dataset structure preserves demographic fields as queryable attributes, supporting cohort analysis, geographic bias detection, and population-specific model evaluation without requiring external demographic inference.
Unique: Provides explicit demographic metadata (country, browser) at conversation level, enabling direct stratified analysis without requiring external demographic inference or proxy models, though limited to coarse-grained attributes compared to crowdsourced alternatives
vs alternatives: More direct demographic stratification than ShareGPT or other conversation corpora, though less granular than purpose-built fairness datasets with rich demographic annotations
Provides conversation-level toxicity labels assigned through automated or human annotation, enabling researchers to identify and filter harmful content, study safety patterns, and train content moderation models. Labels are attached at the conversation level (not per-message), allowing downstream filtering of unsafe conversations or stratified analysis of toxicity distribution across user demographics and conversation types.
Unique: Provides real-world toxicity annotations from production ChatGPT/GPT-4 conversations rather than synthetic or crowdsourced toxic examples, capturing authentic harmful content patterns without artificial prompt engineering, though at conversation-level granularity rather than message-level
vs alternatives: More authentic toxicity examples than synthetic safety datasets, though coarser-grained labeling and less detailed harm taxonomy than purpose-built safety datasets like ToxiGen or RealToxicityPrompts
Provides access to non-English conversations within the dataset, enabling analysis of how users in different languages interact with English-trained LLMs and supporting training of multilingual or cross-lingual models. Conversations are preserved in original language with metadata indicating language or country of origin, allowing language-specific filtering and comparative analysis across linguistic communities.
Unique: Includes real-world multilingual conversations from production ChatGPT/GPT-4 deployments, capturing authentic non-English user interactions and code-switching patterns, though limited in coverage and requiring language detection for explicit language identification
vs alternatives: More authentic multilingual examples than synthetic multilingual datasets, though smaller and less balanced than purpose-built multilingual corpora like FLORES or mC4
Provides structured metadata for each conversation including timestamps, conversation IDs, user IDs, and conversation length, enabling temporal analysis of usage patterns, trend detection, and time-series studies of how user needs and LLM interactions evolved. Metadata is queryable and filterable, supporting cohort analysis by time period and correlation analysis between temporal patterns and conversation characteristics.
Unique: Preserves conversation-level timestamps from production ChatGPT/GPT-4 deployments, enabling temporal analysis of real-world usage evolution without synthetic time-shifting, though limited to conversation-level granularity without turn-level timing
vs alternatives: More authentic temporal data than synthetic datasets, though coarser-grained than specialized time-series conversation corpora with explicit turn-level timestamps
Provides conversations spanning diverse user intents and domains (coding help, creative writing, sensitive topics, general Q&A, etc.) captured from real users without prompt engineering, enabling researchers to sample representative conversations across use cases and train models on realistic domain distributions. The dataset's scale and authenticity allow stratified sampling by inferred domain or use case without requiring explicit domain labels.
Unique: Captures authentic domain diversity from real ChatGPT/GPT-4 users without synthetic prompt engineering, preserving natural distribution of use cases and user intents, though requiring post-hoc domain inference rather than explicit labels
vs alternatives: More authentic domain diversity than synthetic instruction-tuning datasets, though less explicitly labeled and curated than purpose-built domain-specific corpora
The dataset includes structured metadata for each conversation (user demographics, browser/device info, conversation length, timestamps, toxicity labels) that can be extracted and aggregated for statistical analysis. Researchers can compute summary statistics (e.g., average conversation length by country, toxicity prevalence by domain) without processing full conversation text, enabling efficient exploratory analysis and dataset characterization. Metadata is stored in queryable fields, supporting both individual record lookup and bulk aggregation.
Unique: Provides structured metadata fields (country, browser, device, toxicity label) linked to each conversation, enabling efficient statistical summarization without processing full conversation text. Metadata is captured at collection time, preserving temporal and contextual information.
vs alternatives: More efficient for statistical analysis than processing full conversation text, but metadata quality and completeness are not explicitly documented compared to explicitly validated datasets
The dataset captures authentic user requests and model responses, enabling analysis of instruction-following patterns, user intent distribution, and how well models address diverse user needs. Researchers can analyze which types of instructions users provide, how models interpret and respond to them, and where misalignment or misunderstanding occurs. This supports studying instruction-following quality, identifying common user frustrations, and understanding the diversity of real-world use cases beyond typical benchmarks.
Unique: Captures authentic user instructions and model responses from production ChatGPT/GPT-4 deployments, reflecting real instruction-following challenges and user intent distribution rather than synthetic instruction-tuning data. Includes edge cases and sensitive topics that users genuinely request.
vs alternatives: More representative of real-world instruction-following patterns than synthetic instruction-tuning datasets, but lacks explicit success metrics or user satisfaction labels compared to explicitly validated instruction-following benchmarks
+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 WildChat 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