REVIEW 16 cited by
LiveCodeBench Pro: How Do Olympiad Medalists Judge LLMs in Competitive Programming?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Recent reports claim that large language models (LLMs) now outperform elite humans in competitive programming. Drawing on knowledge from a group of medalists in international algorithmic contests, we revisit this claim, examining how LLMs differ from human experts and where limitations still remain. We introduce LiveCodeBench Pro, a benchmark composed of problems from Codeforces, ICPC, and IOI that are continuously updated to reduce the likelihood of data contamination. A team of Olympiad medalists annotates every problem for algorithmic categories and conducts a line-by-line analysis of failed model-generated submissions. Using this new data and benchmark, we find that frontier models still have significant limitations: without external tools, the best model achieves only 53% pass@1 on medium-difficulty problems and 0% on hard problems, domains where expert humans still excel. We also find that LLMs succeed at implementation-heavy problems but struggle with nuanced algorithmic reasoning and complex case analysis, often generating confidently incorrect justifications. High performance appears largely driven by implementation precision and tool augmentation, not superior reasoning. LiveCodeBench Pro thus highlights the significant gap to human grandmaster levels, while offering fine-grained diagnostics to steer future improvements in code-centric LLM reasoning.
Forward citations
Cited by 16 Pith papers
-
AxDafny: Agentic Verified Code Generation in Dafny
AxDafny achieves 92.7% verification success on DafnyBench (6.5 points above prior proof-hint baselines) via verifier-guided repair and introduces the LCB-Pro-Dafny benchmark of 250 problems.
-
Syntax Without Semantics: Teaching Large Language Models to Code in an Unseen Language
Fine-tuning LLMs on an unseen language teaches syntax but fails to transfer semantic competence, leaving Python with up to a 19% performance advantage and no tested intervention closing the gap.
-
CodeSpecBench: Benchmarking LLMs for Executable Behavioral Specification Generation
CodeSpecBench shows LLMs achieve at most 20.2% pass rate on repository-level executable behavioral specification generation, revealing that strong code generation does not imply deep semantic understanding.
-
How to Fine-Tune a Reasoning Model? A Teacher-Student Cooperation Framework to Synthesize Student-Consistent SFT Data
TESSY creates stylistically consistent synthetic data via teacher-student token interleaving, yielding 11.25% and 6.68% gains on code benchmarks where pure teacher data causes 3.25% and 10.02% drops.
-
GABench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Agents on Graph Analysis Tasks
GABench provides the first agentic graph-analysis benchmark with 10,400 executable tasks, and finds existing LLM agents succeed on under 40% of complex graph tasks.
-
PerfAgent: Profiler-Guided Iterative Refinement for Repository-Level Code Optimization
A profiler-guided, verifier-in-the-loop workflow more than doubles the rate at which an off-the-shelf LLM agent matches human-expert speedups on two repository-level code-optimization benchmarks.
-
Syntax Without Semantics: Teaching Large Language Models to Code in an Unseen Language
Fine-tuning LLMs on a novel, syntax-friendly but feature-poor language teaches parsing without closing the gap between PyLang and Python pass rates.
-
OpenDeepThink: Parallel Reasoning via Bradley-Terry Aggregation
OpenDeepThink uses Bradley-Terry aggregation of LLM pairwise judgments to rank and evolve parallel reasoning traces, improving Gemini 3.1 Pro Codeforces Elo by 405 points over eight rounds.
-
OpenDeepThink: Parallel Reasoning via Bradley-Terry Aggregation
OpenDeepThink improves LLM reasoning by ranking parallel candidate traces via Bradley-Terry aggregation of LLM pairwise judgments, achieving a +405 Codeforces Elo gain on Gemini 3.1 Pro after eight rounds.
-
SWE-IF: Aligning Code Evaluation with Human Preference
A blend of functional correctness and instruction-following predicts human preference for code LLMs better than pass@k alone.
-
AutoCodeBench: Large Language Models are Automatic Code Benchmark Generators
AutoCodeBench is an LLM-generated, sandbox-verified code benchmark with 3,920 problems across 20 languages, where top models reach only 52.4% pass@1.
-
When Prompts Go Wrong: Evaluating Code Model Robustness to Ambiguous, Contradictory, and Incomplete Task Descriptions
Code-generating LLMs lose 20 to 40 percentage points in pass rate when task descriptions are ambiguous, incomplete, or contradictory.
-
When Independent Sampling Outperforms Agentic Reasoning
On Codeforces problems, independent k-shot sampling achieves better accuracy-cost and accuracy-query tradeoffs than agentic reasoning, even with prompt caching.
-
Seed1.8 Model Card: Towards Generalized Real-World Agency
Seed1.8 is a new foundation model that adds unified agentic capabilities for search, code execution, and GUI interaction to existing LLM and vision strengths.
-
Multi-LCB: Extending LiveCodeBench to Multiple Programming Languages
Multi-LCB extends LiveCodeBench to 12 languages by translating Python tasks, revealing Python overfitting and performance disparities when evaluating 24 LLMs.
-
Seed2.0 Model Card: Towards Intelligence Frontier for Real-World Complexity
Seed2.0 model series reports gains in reasoning, visual understanding, search, and reliability on intricate long-horizon tasks via an internal evaluation system.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.