Missing MBPP splits
MEMBER
Thanks for reporting this as well, @stadlerb.

I suggest waiting for the answer of the data owners... 
2022-08-08T05:13:14Z
https://github.com/huggingface/datasets/issues/4795#issuecomment-1207674059
https://api.github.com/repos/huggingface/datasets/issues/4795
IC_kwDODunzps5H-6TL
https://api.github.com/repos/huggingface/datasets/issues/comments/1207674059/reactions
2022-08-08T05:13:14Z
https://api.github.com/repos/huggingface/datasets/issues/comments/1207674059
https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8515462?v=4
https://api.github.com/users/albertvillanova/events{/privacy}
https://api.github.com/users/albertvillanova/followers
https://api.github.com/users/albertvillanova/following{/other_user}
https://api.github.com/users/albertvillanova/gists{/gist_id}
https://github.com/albertvillanova
albertvillanova
MDQ6VXNlcjg1MTU0NjI=
https://api.github.com/users/albertvillanova/orgs
https://api.github.com/users/albertvillanova/received_events
https://api.github.com/users/albertvillanova/repos
https://api.github.com/users/albertvillanova/starred{/owner}{/repo}
https://api.github.com/users/albertvillanova/subscriptions
User
https://api.github.com/users/albertvillanova
public
NONE
@albertvillanova The first author of the paper responded to the upstream issue:
> Task IDs 11-510 are the 500 test problems. We use 90 problems (511-600) for validation and then remaining 374 for fine-tuning (601-974). The other problems can be used as desired, either for training or few-shot prompting (although this should be specified).
2022-08-22T10:23:15Z
https://github.com/huggingface/datasets/issues/4795#issuecomment-1222155696
https://api.github.com/repos/huggingface/datasets/issues/4795
IC_kwDODunzps5I2J2w
https://api.github.com/repos/huggingface/datasets/issues/comments/1222155696/reactions
2022-08-22T10:23:15Z
https://api.github.com/repos/huggingface/datasets/issues/comments/1222155696
https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2452384?v=4
https://api.github.com/users/stadlerb/events{/privacy}
https://api.github.com/users/stadlerb/followers
https://api.github.com/users/stadlerb/following{/other_user}
https://api.github.com/users/stadlerb/gists{/gist_id}
https://github.com/stadlerb
stadlerb
MDQ6VXNlcjI0NTIzODQ=
https://api.github.com/users/stadlerb/orgs
https://api.github.com/users/stadlerb/received_events
https://api.github.com/users/stadlerb/repos
https://api.github.com/users/stadlerb/starred{/owner}{/repo}
https://api.github.com/users/stadlerb/subscriptions
User
https://api.github.com/users/stadlerb
public
MEMBER
Thanks for the follow-up, @stadlerb.

Would you be willing to open a Pull Request to address this issue? :wink: 
2022-08-22T10:31:43Z
https://github.com/huggingface/datasets/issues/4795#issuecomment-1222164633
https://api.github.com/repos/huggingface/datasets/issues/4795
IC_kwDODunzps5I2MCZ
https://api.github.com/repos/huggingface/datasets/issues/comments/1222164633/reactions
2022-08-22T10:31:43Z
https://api.github.com/repos/huggingface/datasets/issues/comments/1222164633
https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/8515462?v=4
https://api.github.com/users/albertvillanova/events{/privacy}
https://api.github.com/users/albertvillanova/followers
https://api.github.com/users/albertvillanova/following{/other_user}
https://api.github.com/users/albertvillanova/gists{/gist_id}
https://github.com/albertvillanova
albertvillanova
MDQ6VXNlcjg1MTU0NjI=
https://api.github.com/users/albertvillanova/orgs
https://api.github.com/users/albertvillanova/received_events
https://api.github.com/users/albertvillanova/repos
https://api.github.com/users/albertvillanova/starred{/owner}{/repo}
https://api.github.com/users/albertvillanova/subscriptions
User
https://api.github.com/users/albertvillanova
public
CONTRIBUTOR
Opened a [PR](https://github.com/huggingface/datasets/pull/4943) to implement this--lmk if you have any feedback
2022-09-07T13:52:30Z
https://github.com/huggingface/datasets/issues/4795#issuecomment-1239421484
https://api.github.com/repos/huggingface/datasets/issues/4795
IC_kwDODunzps5J4BIs
https://api.github.com/repos/huggingface/datasets/issues/comments/1239421484/reactions
2022-09-07T13:52:30Z
https://api.github.com/repos/huggingface/datasets/issues/comments/1239421484
https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/2788526?v=4
https://api.github.com/users/cwarny/events{/privacy}
https://api.github.com/users/cwarny/followers
https://api.github.com/users/cwarny/following{/other_user}
https://api.github.com/users/cwarny/gists{/gist_id}
https://github.com/cwarny
cwarny
MDQ6VXNlcjI3ODg1MjY=
https://api.github.com/users/cwarny/orgs
https://api.github.com/users/cwarny/received_events
https://api.github.com/users/cwarny/repos
https://api.github.com/users/cwarny/starred{/owner}{/repo}
https://api.github.com/users/cwarny/subscriptions
User
https://api.github.com/users/cwarny
public
(@albertvillanova)
The [MBPP dataset on the Hub](https://huggingface.co/datasets/mbpp) has only a test split for both its "full" and its "sanitized" subset, while the [paper](https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07732) states in subsection 2.1 regarding the full split:
> In the experiments described later in the paper, we hold out 10 problems for **few-shot prompting**, another 500 as our **test** dataset (which is used to evaluate both few-shot inference and fine-tuned models), 374 problems for **fine-tuning**, and the rest for **validation**.

If the dataset on the Hub should reproduce most closely what the original authors use, I guess this four-way split should be reflected. 

The paper doesn't explicitly state the task_id ranges of the splits, but the [GitHub readme](https://github.com/google-research/google-research/tree/master/mbpp) referenced in the paper specifies exact task_id ranges, although it misstates the total number of samples:
> We specify a train and test split to use for evaluation. Specifically:
> 
> * Task IDs 11-510 are used for evaluation.
> * Task IDs 1-10 and 511-1000 are used for training and/or prompting. We typically used 1-10 for few-shot prompting, although you can feel free to use any of the training examples.

I.e. the few-shot, train and validation splits are combined into one split, with a soft suggestion of using the first ten for few-shot prompting. It is not explicitly stated whether the 374 fine-tuning samples mentioned in the paper have task_id 511 to 784 or 601 to 974 or are randomly sampled from task_id 511 to 974.

Regarding the "sanitized" split the paper states the following:
> For evaluations involving the edited dataset, we perform comparisons with 100 problems that appear in both the original and edited dataset, using the same held out 10 problems for few-shot prompting and 374 problems for fine-tuning. 

The statement doesn't appear to be very precise, as among the 10 few-shot problems, those with task_id 1, 5 and 10 are not even part of the sanitized variant, and many from the task_id range from 511 to 974 are missing (e.g. task_id 511 to 553). I suppose the idea the task_id ranges for each split remain the same, even if some of the task_ids are not present. That would result in 7 few-shot, 257 test, 141 train and 22 validation examples in the sanitized split.