Competitive Programming

Competitive programming has become a key test of large language model reasoning, with international competitions such as IOI and ICPC representing its most challenging settings. We present an end-to-end specialization pipeline combining large-scale problem curation, synthetic reasoning traces, supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and reinforcement learning (RL). Using 22,000 curated problems, we train Nemotron-3-Nano-CC (30B-A3B) with SFT and RL and Nemotron-3-Ultra-CC (550B-A55B) with SFT alone. We further introduce GenCorrect, a feedback-driven test-time compute strategy that iteratively generates, evaluates, and refines diverse solutions. On IOI 2025, Nano-CC improves from 130 points to 291 after post-training and to 468 with GenCorrect, exceeding the gold threshold of 438.3 while Ultra-CC reaches 502. Guided by these results, we develop a competition-specific Ultra-CC system and evaluate it prospectively during IOI 2026. Under the same time, internet-access, and submission constraints as human contestants, it scores 535.4 out of 600, exceeding both the gold threshold of 361.12 and the top human score of 498.27. To our knowledge, this is the first AI system to outscore the highest-scoring human contestant on an IOI problem set.

Online-judge verdicts and the datasets and benchmarks built on them are treated as ground truth for evaluating and training large language models for code. Yet prior audits have sounded a warning: official suites accept buggy submissions. These audits, however, stop at the warning and offer no practical remedy. Our remedy has two parts: an off-the-shelf coding agent, serving as a test-suite auditor, both builds adversarial test suites to expose what official suites miss and supplies these suites where no official suite exists; a certification chain determines whether each agent-flagged submission is genuinely buggy without relying on the official judge: multiple independently written accepted solutions agree on the expected output for every test, brute-force solutions settle disagreements, and a per-problem validator certifies each failing input legal. One such agent identifies 589 verified accepted-but-buggy submissions among AtCoder's 20,375 audited accepted submissions; extending the same certification to all five agents yields a union floor of 906 such submissions. Five agents, scored separately, each stay within 1.7pp of official-suite coverage on logic bugs those suites catch. On post-cutoff Codeforces problems with no available official suites, the same test-building method leads all five reproduced baselines at every tested input budget. Where an official suite exists, the agent audits suite adequacy instead of assuming it; where none exists, agent suites catch the most buggy submissions among methods we reproduced and tested.

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.

Evaluating the efficiency of algorithmic code requires test cases that expose runtime bottlenecks. Previous methods generate efficiency test cases either by increasing input size or by generating code-specific inputs that make the given implementation run slowly. Consequently, they do not address the structural input conditions that drive the algorithmic worst case. We introduce STAB, a specification-driven pipeline that generates test cases that expose algorithmic bottlenecks from a natural-language problem specification alone. STAB separates the task into constraint-bound maximization and adversarial structure injection. (i) The constraint saturator extracts constraints and resolves large admissible size assignments using rule-based saturation and CP-SAT optimization over related variables. (ii) The adversarial scenario injector retrieves implementation-level adversarial construction principles from a curated scenario catalog using keyword matching and K-nearest neighbors (KNN). STAB encodes the problem specification, resolved boundary, and retrieved construction principles into a structured generation specification, from which the LLM synthesizes a Python test case generator. On CodeContests, STAB raises the rate of generated test cases that expose algorithmic bottlenecks from 50.43% to 73.45% on average across open-source LLMs and from 57.45% to 71.85% on average across closed-source LLMs, with consistent gains across Python, Java, and C++. Our code is available at https://github.com/suhanmen/STAB.

Large language models still struggle with contest-level programming, while many agentic remedies rely on massive inference-time sampling or expensive multi-stage post-training. We study when execution feedback reliably helps an LLM CP solver and which mechanisms govern the gains. We model feedback-driven solving as a calibrated stopped process and identify three quantities: false-admission risk, program-level evidence against bad programs, and the active-state success hazard. Under held-out trace calibration and selection from a pre-declared finite controller manifest, the resulting structural certificate lower-bounds the clean success probability before false admission. We instantiate mechanisms targeting these quantities as Dual-Granularity Verification, Test Augmentation, and Experience-Driven Self-Evolving, yielding CP-Agent. Without updating any parameters, CP-Agent raises Pass@1 from 25.8% to 48.5% on LiveCodeBench Pro and improves Refine@5 by 11.0% on ICPC-Eval. Across three LLM backbones, CP-Agent lies on the cost--accuracy efficiency frontier, and ablations show that each component primarily affects its corresponding certificate quantity.

Large language models (LLMs) still struggle with the rigorous reasoning demands of hard competitive programming. While recent multi-agent frameworks attempt to bridge this reliability gap, they remain fundamentally stateless: they rely on static retrieval and discard the valuable problem-solving and debugging experience gained from previous tasks. To address this, we present Solvita, an agentic evolution framework that enables continuous learning without requiring weight updates to the underlying LLM. Solvita reorganizes problem-solving into a closed-loop system of strategy selection, program synthesis, certified supervision, and targeted hacking, executed by four specialized agents: Planner, Solver, Oracle, and Hacker. Crucially, each agent is paired with a trainable, graph-structured knowledge network. As the system operates, outcome signals, such as pass/fail verdicts, test certification quality, and adversarial vulnerabilities discovered by the Hacker, are recast as reinforcement learning updates to these network weights. This allows the agents to dynamically route future queries based on past successes and failures, effectively accumulating transferable reasoning experience over time. Evaluated across CodeContests, APPS, AetherCode, and live Codeforces rounds, Solvita establishes a new state-of-the-art among code-generation agents, outperforming existing multi-agent pipelines and nearly doubling the accuracy of single-pass baselines.

We study how to allocate inference-time compute for competitive programming under fixed budgets. Evaluating 216 Codeforces problems across Divisions 1-3, we compare agent-based reasoning with repeated independent sampling (k-shot) as a function of both cost and number of model calls. Across models and difficulty levels, k-shot consistently achieves a better accuracy-cost and accuracy-query tradeoff. This gap persists despite prompt caching in agent frameworks, indicating lower per-call effectiveness. Our results show that, for self-contained algorithmic tasks, independent exploration can outperform deeper agentic reasoning under realistic resource constraints. We also provide a budget-allocation analysis when the inference budget is fixed, and prove that a cost-optimal solver minimizes the principled metric log failure likelihood per dollar.

Algorithmic problem solving serves as a rigorous testbed for evaluating structured reasoning in AI coding systems, as it directly reflects a model's ability to perform structured reasoning in complex scenarios. Existing approaches predominantly rely on model-centric strategies, such as architectural modifications and data scaling, which are costly and offer limited interpretability. Alternative methods leveraging external tools or prompting techniques (e.g., chain-of-thought) are often fragmented and lack a unified framework. In this paper, we propose MAS-Algorithm, a systematic multi-agent workflow for algorithmic problem solving inspired by the practices of competitive programmers and algorithm engineers. Our framework decomposes the end-to-end solving process into modular stages, enabling structured reasoning, tool integration, and flexible coordination among agents. The design emphasizes both rigor and extensibility, allowing it to generalize across diverse problem types. Experimental results on a self-constructed benchmark demonstrate consistent improvements across multiple Qwen series models, achieving an average gain of 6.48% in acceptance rate. In contrast, parameter-efficient fine-tuning on the same data yields only a marginal improvement of 0.89%. We further observe a 4.72% gain on LiveCodeBench-Pro, along with consistent improvements across additional accuracy and efficiency metrics. Beyond performance gains, we conduct comprehensive analyses to better understand the reasoning process within the workflow, including error patterns and cross-scenario behaviors. We further perform customized replacement and ablation studies to explore the upper bound of the framework, showing that individual agents can contribute improvements of up to 27.7%. These results highlight the strong potential of MAS-Algorithm for advancing AI-driven algorithmic reasoning.

Competitive programming remains one of the last few human strongholds in coding against AI. The best AI system to date still underperforms the best humans competitive programming: the most recent best result, Google's Gemini3 Deep Think, attained 8th place even not being evaluated under live competition conditions. In this work, we introduce GrandCode, a multi-agent RL system designed for competitive programming. The capability of GrandCode is attributed to two key factors: (1) It orchestrates a variety of agentic modules (hypothesis proposal, solver, test generator, summarization, etc) and jointly improves them through post-training and online test-time RL; (2) We introduce Agentic GRPO specifically designed for multi-stage agent rollouts with delayed rewards and the severe off-policy drift that is prevalent in agentic RL. GrandCode is the first AI system that consistently beats all human participants in live contests of competitive programming: in the most recent three Codeforces live competitions, i.e., Round1087 (Mar 21, 2026), Round1088 (Mar 28, 2026), and Round1089 (Mar 29, 2026), GrandCode placed first in all of them, beating all human participants, including legendary grandmasters. GrandCode shows that AI systems have reached a point where they surpass the strongest human programmers on the most competitive coding tasks.

While large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance on complex reasoning tasks such as competitive programming (CP), existing methods predominantly focus on single-attempt settings, overlooking their capacity for iterative refinement. In this paper, we present RefineRL, a novel approach designed to unleash the self-refinement capabilities of LLMs for CP problem solving. RefineRL introduces two key innovations: (1) Skeptical-Agent, an iterative self-refinement agent equipped with local execution tools to validate generated solutions against public test cases of CP problems. This agent always remains skeptical of its own outputs and thereby enforces rigorous self-refinement even when validation suggests correctness. (2) A reinforcement learning (RL) solution to incentivize LLMs to self-refine with only standard RLVR data (i.e., problems paired with their verifiable answers). Extensive experiments on Qwen3-4B and Qwen3-4B-2507 demonstrate that our method yields substantial gains: after our RL training, these compact 4B models integrated with the Skeptical-Agent not only outperform much larger 32B models but also approach the single-attempt performance of 235B models. Notably, although our models are trained solely on CP coding data, RefineRL also substantially improves their performance on mathematical reasoning benchmarks, suggesting that the learned self-refinement behavior can transfer beyond coding-specific tasks. These findings highlight self-refinement as a promising direction for scaling LLMs' general reasoning ability.

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

Competitive programming problems are increasingly used to evaluate the coding capabilities of large language models (LLMs) due to their complexity and ease of verification. Yet, current coding benchmarks face limitations such as a lack of exceptionally challenging problems, insufficient test case coverage, and reliance on online platform APIs that limit accessibility. To address these issues, we introduce LiveOIBench, a large-scale competitive programming benchmark featuring 403 expert-curated problems, averaging 60 official test cases each, drawn from 72 contests across 14 Informatics Olympiads held between 2023 and 2025. LiveOIBench has four key features: (1) expert-designed tasks with detailed subtask rubrics and extensive test cases; (2) direct comparison to elite human contestants; (3) continuous updates to reduce contamination risk; and (4) a fully offline, reproducible evaluation system. Benchmarking 34 popular general-purpose and reasoning LLMs, we find that GPT-5 achieves an 81.76th percentile, still falling short of top human contestants, while among the open-weight models, GPT-OSS-120B reaches only the 60th percentile. Reasoning-trace analyses indicate that robust reasoning models prioritize precise problem analysis over excessive exploration. Finally, analyses across release dates, task familiarity, and code similarity find minimal evidence of data contamination in our benchmark. Our leaderboard, code, and data are available at: https://liveoibench.github.io/.