5 accepted papers
Writing competitive programming problems is exacting. Authors must: set constraints, input distributions, and edge cases that rule out shortcuts; target specific algorithms (e.g., max-flow, dynamic programming, data structures); and calibrate complexity beyond the reach of most competitors. We argue…
We introduce FrontierCS, a benchmark of 240 open-ended problems across diverse areas of computer science, designed and reviewed by experts, including CS PhDs and top-tier competitive programming participants and problem setters. Unlike existing benchmarks that focus on tasks with known optimal solut…
Multi-turn, multi-agent LLM game evaluations often exhibit substantial run-to-run variance. In long-horizon interactions, small early deviations compound across turns and are amplified by multi-agent coupling, biasing win rate estimates and destabilizing comparative rankings across repeated tourname…
Large language models (LLMs) can already draft plausible Triton kernels, yet most existing evaluations still focus on single-shot generation and underplay tool use and feedback. We introduce *TritonGym*, a benchmark and orchestration framework for evaluating agentic workflows in GPU code generation.…
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.…