LiveOIBench: Can Large Language Models Outperform Human Contestants in Informatics Olympiads?

Despite strong performance in competitive programming, the role of Large Language Models (LLMs) in supporting human learning in the same setting remains largely unexplored. In this work, we introduce UOJ-Bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate not only the problem-solving ability of LLMs, but also their ability to identify errors in human-written code -- a crucial educational activity traditionally supported by running test cases over online judge systems. UOJ-Bench consists of three distinct tasks: code generation, code hacking, and code repair, all constructed from real-world code submissions on the Universal Online Judge (UOJ) and evaluated through UOJ's native judging infrastructure. Our results show that under one-shot evaluation, even the strongest models fail to identify errors in more than 50% of a set of submissions that have been found to be incorrect by UOJ users. While test-time scaling improves success rates to above 90%, the substantial computational costs incurred from model inference limit its practicality for large-scale deployment. Despite these limitations, we find that the best-performing models under test-time scaling can uncover errors in over 5% of full-score submissions across roughly 30 problems, suggesting that frontier LLMs can already provide complementary signals beyond standard judging systems.

LiveCodeBench (LCB) has recently become a widely adopted benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on code-generation tasks. By curating competitive programming problems, constantly adding fresh problems to the set, and filtering them by release dates, LCB provides contamination-aware evaluation and offers a holistic view of coding capability. However, LCB remains restricted to Python, leaving open the question of whether LLMs can generalize across the diverse programming languages required in real-world software engineering. We introduce Multi-LCB, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs across twelve programming languages, including Python. Multi-LCB transforms Python tasks from the LCB dataset into equivalent tasks in other languages while preserving LCB's contamination controls and evaluation protocol. Because it is fully compatible with the original LCB format, Multi-LCB will automatically track future LCB updates, enabling systematic assessment of cross-language code generation competence and requiring models to sustain performance well beyond Python. We evaluated 24 LLMs for instruction and reasoning on Multi-LCB, uncovering evidence of Python overfitting, language-specific contamination, and substantial disparities in multilingual performance. Our results establish Multi-LCB as a rigorous new benchmark for multi-programming-language code evaluation, directly addressing LCB's primary limitation and exposing critical gaps in current LLM capabilities.

Competitive programming remains challenging for code LLMs. Despite recent progress, many training pipelines still depend on scarce real-world data, raising concerns about scalability and near-duplicate benchmark contamination. In this paper, we examine whether synthetic training artifacts can support the complete SFT-to-RL cycle for competitive programming: no real-world tasks, solutions, or test cases are directly used for post-training. To this end, we synthesize tasks, verified solutions, and reliable test cases that serve as reward signals for reinforcement learning. To improve reward reliability, we introduce a dual-verification strategy that reduces noise in both selected solutions and test outputs. Using this high-quality data, we train the X-Coder model series. X-Coder-14B achieves 67.5% avg@8 on LiveCodeBench v5 and 63.4% on v6, outperforming its base model by over 40 points. Further analysis provides practical insights into synthetic post-training, highlighting the value of diverse tasks, verified long-CoT supervision, and code-centric reinforcement. Our data and models are released at https://github.com/JieWu02/X-Coder