arXiv:2510. 09595v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Competitive programming problems are increasingly used to evaluate the coding capabilities of large language models (LLMs) due to their complexity and ease of verification.
arXiv:2606. 12864v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Despite strong performance in competitive programming, the role of Large Language Models (LLMs) in supporting human learning in the same setting remains largely unexplored.
The paper reports a specialized training pipeline for large language models to excel in competitive programming, combining problem curation, synthetic reasoning traces, supervised fine‑tuning, and reinforcement learning. Using 22,000 curated problems, the authors train two models—Nemotron‑3‑Nano‑CC (30B) and Nemotron‑3‑Ultra‑CC (550B)—and introduce GenCorrect, a test‑time refinement strategy. On the IOI 2025 benchmark, Nano‑CC scores 468 points with GenCorrect, surpassing the gold‑medal threshold, while Ultra‑CC reaches 502; in IOI 2026, a competition‑specific Ultra‑CC system scores 535.4, exceeding both the gold threshold and the top human score of 498.27, marking the first AI system to outscore the highest‑scoring human contestant on an IOI problem set.
arXiv:2606.15872v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Frontier scientific reasoning remains a major challenge for large language models (LLMs), where even the strongest commercial systems fall short of...
arXiv:2511. 06090v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Optimizing the performance of large-scale software repositories demands expertise in code reasoning and software engineering (SWE) to reduce runtime while preserving program correctness.
arXiv:2610. 00416v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating large language models becomes increasingly challenging as their capabilities advance: benchmarks can saturate, public test sets risk contamination, and assessing harder tasks can require expensive grading or execution infrastructure.
LiveMathematicianBench is a dynamic multiple‑choice benchmark for research‑level mathematical reasoning, built from recent arXiv papers published after model training cutoffs. It introduces a thirteen‑category logical taxonomy of theorem types and uses a proof‑sketch‑guided distractor pipeline to create plausible but invalid answer choices, enhancing sensitivity to genuine reasoning. Evaluation shows current large language models perform poorly, with the best model scoring 43.5% overall and only 17.6% under substitution‑resistant conditions, indicating the benchmark’s difficulty and realism.
arXiv:2606. 29537v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing computer-use benchmarks fail to capture the realism, complexity, and long-horizon demands of real-world computer use, limiting their ability to reveal the limitations of frontier agents.
arXiv:2606. 29537v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Existing computer-use benchmarks fail to capture the realism, complexity, and long-horizon demands of real-world computer use, limiting their ability to reveal the limitations of frontier agents.
WordPolo is a word‑finding task that evaluates language models by having them guess an unknown target word and receive semantic similarity feedback. Participants start with no knowledge, make iterative guesses, and receive distance scores that guide them through semantic space. The study tests recent LLMs, LRMs, humans, and a heuristic on 1,500 puzzles, revealing that while solve rates vary widely, many models make meaningful progress and exhibit human‑like strategies, highlighting the importance of assessing reasoning processes, not just final accuracy.
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) handle bug fixing versus problem solving in competitive programming. Using a dataset of ~3,000 Codeforces submissions and their human fixes, the authors compare LLM-generated patches to human patches and assess whether LLMs prefer to modify buggy code or generate new solutions. Results show that LLMs often alter more lines than necessary and sometimes produce entirely new solutions, performing better when allowed to generate solutions from scratch rather than patching existing code.
arXiv:2606. 07682v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI agents are increasingly expected to complete long-horizon workflows that require sustained progress over hours, millions of tokens, and complex environments.
arXiv:2608.27831v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Coding agents are now commonly evaluated on the SWE-bench family of benchmarks, whose tasks are built from curated GitHub issues--long, structured, a...