Evaluating and Improving Large Language Models for Competitive Program Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.22954v1
• Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2025 17:18:23 GMT
• Title: Evaluating and Improving Large Language Models for Competitive Program Generation
• Authors: Minnan Wei, Ziming Li, Xiang Chen, Menglin Zheng, Ziyan Qu, Cheng Yu, Siyu Chen, Xiaolin Ju,
• Abstract summary: This study aims to evaluate and improve large language models (LLMs) in solving real-world competitive programming problems.<n>We collect 117 problems from nine regional ICPC/CCPC contests held in 2024 and design four filtering criteria to construct a curated benchmark consisting of 80 problems.<n>We evaluate its competitive program generation capabilities through the online judge (OJ) platforms, guided by a carefully designed basic prompt.
• Score: 18.564450345359468
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Context: Due to the demand for strong algorithmic reasoning, complex logic implementation, and strict adherence to input/output formats and resource constraints, competitive programming generation by large language models (LLMs) is considered the most challenging problem in current LLM-based code generation. However, previous studies often evaluate LLMs using simple prompts and benchmark datasets prone to data leakage. Moreover, prior work has limited consideration of the diversity in algorithm types and difficulty levels. Objective: In this study, we aim to evaluate and improve LLMs in solving real-world competitive programming problems. Methods: We initially collect 117 problems from nine regional ICPC/CCPC contests held in 2024 and design four filtering criteria to construct a curated benchmark consisting of 80 problems. Leveraging DeepSeek-R1 as the LLM, we evaluate its competitive program generation capabilities through the online judge (OJ) platforms, guided by a carefully designed basic prompt. For incorrect submissions, we construct a fine-grained error taxonomy and then propose a targeted improvement framework by combining a multi-turn dialogue-based repair phase and an information-augmented regeneration phase. Results: Experimental results show that only 5 out of 80 problems are fully accepted when using basic prompts. For the unsolved problems, we construct the error taxonomy, including general errors (such as design, boundary, condition, data type, syntax, and input/output errors) and specialized errors (such as those in mathematical problems, greedy algorithms, and graph theories). After applying our proposed improvement strategies, we substantially increased the number of correct solutions, with 46 out of 80 problems successfully accepted.

Related papers

• Surrogate Signals from Format and Length: Reinforcement Learning for Solving Mathematical Problems without Ground Truth Answers [24.934432751910443]
  This research delves into the utilization of format and length as surrogate signals to train LLMs for mathematical problem-solving.<n>Our study shows that a reward function centered on format correctness alone can yield performance improvements comparable to the standard GRPO algorithm in early phases.<n>The resulting GRPO approach, leveraging format-length surrogate signals, not only matches but surpasses the performance of the standard GRPO algorithm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T02:56:22Z)
• PromptCoT: Synthesizing Olympiad-level Problems for Mathematical Reasoning in Large Language Models [59.920971312822736]
  We introduce PromptCoT, a novel approach for automatically generating high-quality Olympiad-level math problems.<n>The proposed method synthesizes complex problems based on mathematical concepts and the rationale behind problem construction.<n>Our method is evaluated on standard benchmarks including GSM8K, MATH-500, and AIME2024, where it consistently outperforms existing problem generation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T06:32:30Z)
• How to Get Your LLM to Generate Challenging Problems for Evaluation [33.625052642068624]
  CHASE is a unified framework to synthetically generate challenging problems using Large Language Models.<n>We implement CHASE to create evaluation benchmarks across three diverse domains.<n>The performance of state-of-the-art LLMs on these synthetic benchmarks lies in the range of 40-60% accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T16:09:55Z)
• CodeElo: Benchmarking Competition-level Code Generation of LLMs with Human-comparable Elo Ratings [70.95565672516979]
  Existing benchmarks, like LiveCodeBench and USACO, fall short due to the unavailability of private test cases, lack of support for special judges, and misaligned execution environments.<n>CodeElo is a standardized competition-level code generation benchmark that effectively addresses all these challenges for the first time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-02T13:49:00Z)
• Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verification [52.095460362197336]
  Large language models (LLMs) struggle with consistent and accurate reasoning. LLMs are trained primarily on correct solutions, reducing their ability to detect and learn from errors. We propose a novel collaborative method integrating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT) solutions for verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T05:21:48Z)
• What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study [80.18342600996601]
  Large language models (LLMs) produce code that is shorter yet more complicated as compared to canonical solutions. We develop a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes that includes three categories and 12 sub-categories, and analyze the root cause for common bug types. We propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code based on bug types and compiler feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:27:17Z)
• MindStar: Enhancing Math Reasoning in Pre-trained LLMs at Inference Time [51.5039731721706]
  MindStar is a purely inference-based searching method for large language models. It formulates reasoning tasks as searching problems and proposes two search ideas to identify the optimal reasoning paths. It significantly enhances the reasoning abilities of open-source models, such as Llama-2-13B and Mistral-7B, and achieves comparable performance to GPT-3.5 and Grok-1.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-25T15:07:33Z)
• PECC: Problem Extraction and Coding Challenges [3.287942619833188]
  We introduce PECC, a novel benchmark derived from Advent Of Code (AoC) challenges and Project Euler. Unlike conventional benchmarks, PECC requires LLMs to interpret narrative-embedded problems, extract requirements, and generate code. Results show varying model performance between narrative and neutral problems, with specific challenges in the Euler math-based subset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-29T15:02:14Z)
• Can Language Models Solve Olympiad Programming? [40.54366634332231]
  This paper introduces the USACO benchmark with 307 problems from the USA Computing Olympiad. We construct and test a range of LM inference methods for competitive programming for the first time. We find GPT-4 only achieves a 8.7% pass@1 accuracy with zero-shot chain-of-thought prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T23:27:38Z)
• DeepCode AI Fix: Fixing Security Vulnerabilities with Large Language Models [3.1690235522182104]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to solve various programming tasks. We show that the task is difficult as it requires the model to learn long-range code relationships. We propose a technique to address these challenges with a new approach for querying and fine-tuning LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T18:35:40Z)
• Competition-Level Problems are Effective LLM Evaluators [121.15880285283116]
  This paper aims to evaluate the reasoning capacities of large language models (LLMs) in solving recent programming problems in Codeforces. We first provide a comprehensive evaluation of GPT-4's peiceived zero-shot performance on this task, considering various aspects such as problems' release time, difficulties, and types of errors encountered. Surprisingly, theThoughtived performance of GPT-4 has experienced a cliff like decline in problems after September 2021 consistently across all the difficulties and types of problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-04T18:58:57Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.