| --- |
| dataset_info: |
| - config_name: edit |
| features: |
| - name: input |
| dtype: string |
| - name: target |
| dtype: string |
| - name: problem_id |
| dtype: string |
| splits: |
| - name: train |
| num_bytes: 56166875 |
| num_examples: 48386 |
| - name: val |
| num_bytes: 3336062 |
| num_examples: 3338 |
| - name: test |
| num_bytes: 857857 |
| num_examples: 794 |
| download_size: 365069 |
| dataset_size: 60360794 |
| - config_name: generate |
| features: |
| - name: problem_id |
| dtype: string |
| - name: problem_description |
| dtype: string |
| splits: |
| - name: train |
| num_bytes: 1793963 |
| num_examples: 1262 |
| - name: val |
| num_bytes: 96855 |
| num_examples: 69 |
| - name: test |
| num_bytes: 60776 |
| num_examples: 49 |
| download_size: 37588 |
| dataset_size: 1951594 |
| - config_name: generate_eval |
| features: |
| - name: problem_id |
| dtype: string |
| - name: runtimes |
| sequence: float64 |
| - name: memories |
| sequence: float64 |
| - name: num_sol |
| dtype: int64 |
| splits: |
| - name: test |
| num_bytes: 770704 |
| num_examples: 48 |
| download_size: 147211 |
| dataset_size: 770704 |
| configs: |
| - config_name: edit |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: edit/train-* |
| - split: val |
| path: edit/val-* |
| - split: test |
| path: edit/test-* |
| - config_name: generate |
| data_files: |
| - split: train |
| path: generate/train-* |
| - split: val |
| path: generate/val-* |
| - split: test |
| path: generate/test-* |
| - config_name: generate_eval |
| data_files: |
| - split: test |
| path: generate_eval/test-* |
| --- |
| # ECCO |
|
|
| Dataset from the paper "ECCO: Can We Improve Model-Generated Code Efficiency Without Sacrificing Functional Correctness?" |
|
|
|  |
|
|
| The dataset consists of 2 subsets `edit` and `generate` each with 3 splits (`train`, `val` and `test`). |
|
|
| Code repository: [https://github.com/CodeEff/ECCO](https://github.com/CodeEff/ECCO) |
|
|
| ### Loading the dataset / benchmark |
| ```python |
| dataset = load_dataset('CodeEff/ECCO', 'edit') # For history-based editing setting |
| dataset = load_dataset('CodeEff/ECCO', 'generate') # For nl-instructed generation setting |
| ``` |
| These are used to generate code by each model across the 2 paradigms. We use the `test` split for the evaluation/results and the `train` and `val` splits for finetuning and few-shot prompting. |
|
|
| ### Download the test cases |
| ```sh |
| mkdir data && cd data |
| wget https://huggingface.co/datasets/CodeEff/ECCO/resolve/main/test_cases.zip |
| unzip test_cases.zip |
| ``` |
|
|
| ### Evaluation dataset |
| The dataset also consists of an additional 3rd subset `generate_eval` which consists of the runtime and memory of a spectrum of user solutions for each problem in the `test` split. |
| This is used for the percentile evaluation of the **NL-instructed generation** paradigm. |
|
|
| ### Data Sources |
| Dataset is sourced from [IBM CodeNet](https://github.com/IBM/Project_CodeNet) which consists of primarily competetive programming solutions. |
| This is further filtered for efficiency and correctness as described in our paper. |
|
|
|
|
| ### Citation |
| ```bib |
| @article{waghjale2024ecco, |
| title={ECCO: Can We Improve Model-Generated Code Efficiency Without Sacrificing Functional Correctness?}, |
| author={Waghjale, Siddhant and Veerendranath, Vishruth and Wang, Zora Zhiruo and Fried, Daniel}, |
| journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.14044}, |
| year={2024} |
| } |
| ``` |