This work introduces InteractBench, a benchmark comprising 322 high-quality interactive problems curated from Codeforces, AtCoder, IOI, and ICPC, and assesses whether model-generated code can acquire information and track state dynamically.
Abstract
Competitive programming is increasingly being used to evaluate the algorithmic reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, existing benchmarks primarily focus on full-information tasks where all problem inputs are provided upfront. This overlooks a critical dimension of algorithmic reasoning: the ability of generated programs to operate when key information is not revealed upfront. Interactive problems, a distinctive component of competitive programming, embody this challenge. These problems require programs to engage in multi-round interaction with an interactor (a judge program) under strict protocol constraints and limited query budgets, with new information revealed only in response to queries. To address this gap, we introduce InteractBench, a benchmark comprising 322 high-quality interactive problems curated from Codeforces, AtCoder, IOI, and ICPC. Each problem is packaged with executable local interactors, enabling fully offline evaluation. Unlike existing benchmarks, InteractBench assesses whether model-generated code can acquire information and track state dynamically. Our evaluation reveals a significant interaction gap: even the most advanced reasoning models achieve limited success on interactive problems. Beyond success rates, we propose a fine-grained failure taxonomy to diagnose the root causes of these deficiencies. Although algorithmic logic errors remain dominant, protocol violations and query-budget overruns are frequent. Code is available at https://github.com/kmsgk0/InteractBench.
SAILOR, a proof-of-concept system that detects such unsupported numerical choices, asks the user targeted follow-up questions, and updates the optimization model before returning a solution, is presented.
Shaghayegh Sadeghi, Steve Smith, D. C. Del Rey Fernández· 0 citations
This study empirically evaluates whether cost-efficient Large Language Models (LLMs) can be trusted to generate enterprise code to a written specification. Three models (Gemini Flash 3, GPT-5.4 mini and Claude Haiku 4.5) were asked to solve 992 algorithmic problems as Java Spring Boot service methods conforming to a ma...
Adaptive-GEPA is introduced, which learns both how to divide requests and how to solve them, and it evolves a router and a library of specialist programs under one search budget.
Tian-Yu Chen, Yasi Zhang, Rui-Yi Wang et al.· 0 citations
OptiArena is introduced, a budget-controlled testbed for studying whether LLMs can improve executable game-playing algorithms through five rounds of code edits within a fixed minimal scaffold and under bounded evaluator feedback and fixed resource budgets.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for everyday assistance, yet existing benchmarks only partially reflect the requests users naturally make in practice. Real-world requests are often open-ended, casually specified, and context-dependent, requiring models not only to follow explicit instructions but als...
Yong Peng, Qing-Shui Gu, Li-Ya Zhu et al.· 0 citations
The PAU (Python API Understanding) benchmark is introduced, where models are provided with black-box, API-level access to code snippets, and inspiration is taken from the Asymmetric Actor Critic paradigm, frequently used in robot learning, to post-train models for interactive code understanding.
Dhananjay Ashok, Jesse Thomason, Jonathan May· 0 citations