Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2608.29632

InteractBench: Benchmarking LLMs on Competitive Programming under Unrevealed Information

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.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Jiaze Li, Aocheng Shen, Bing Liu, Boyu Zhang, Xiaoxuan Fan, Qiankun Zhang, Xianjun Deng. 2026-08-30. InteractBench: Benchmarking LLMs on Competitive Programming under Unrevealed Information. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.29632

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Efficient SWE Agent Benchmarking via Trajectory-Aware Evaluation

Evaluating software engineering agents on realistic benchmarks is costly, since each task may require multi-step code exploration, modification, and test execution. Existing efficient evaluation methods select representative subsets to estimate full-benchmark performance, but are largely result-only: they fit historical pass/fail response matrices or static task semantics, discarding how agents solve problems. We propose PTA-IRT, a Privileged Trajectory-Aware Item Response Theory framework that fuses process and outcome signals. Historical execution trajectories supply process-level evidence beyond pass/fail, such as explored context, attempted edits, and solving paths, which PTA-IRT uses as privileged information for calibration subset selection and ability estimation. Under low calibration budgets, PTA-IRT consistently outperforms prior IRT baselines on score and ranking recovery across four SWE benchmarks. Code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/DeepSoftwareAnalytics/PTA-IRT.

cs.SE

Set-shifting Behavioral Test for Harnessed Agents

What happens to an LLM agent's tool choice when the reliable tool silently changes within an ongoing session? We borrow the notion of set-shifting from cognitive psychology to study how well agents adapt to hidden reliability shifts. Our cognitive test for LLM agents mounts libraries of redundant tools and skills, in which many tools solve the same task but differ in hidden reliability. Using a branching schedule, we shift the reliable tool group in the environment and compare it with a stable control, allowing us to isolate the effect of each shift on the agent's behavior. We conduct our study on a panel of LLMs equipped with harnesses and show that the same set of shifts results in distinct behaviors across models: some latch onto a fixed routine within a few turns, whereas others continue to vary. Less capable models often omit the reliable tool group, while frontier models keep calling it alongside the other groups. We introduce a suite of measures to quantify agent behavior after reliability shifts. While policy prompting substantially alters behavior in some tested models, our findings highlight agents' brittleness when changes occur in indirectly observable context.

cs.AI

PaperCompiler: Faithful Paper-to-Code Generation via Repository-Level Specification Compilation

Faithfully translating research papers into repository-level implementations remains challenging because papers often describe methods at a high level, leave implementation assumptions implicit, and require generated repositories to preserve method logic, evaluation protocols, and cross-file consistency. Despite recent advances in paper-to-code agents, their intermediate outputs are often presented as free-form plans or summaries that downstream coding agents may ignore, reinterpret, or compress, leading to algorithmic simplification and inconsistent repository structure. To address these challenges, we introduce PaperCompiler, a paper-to-code generation framework that compiles paper-grounded evidence into explicit repository-level implementation specifications. PaperCompiler grounds implementation-relevant evidence while preserving source provenance and distinguishing paper-supported, inferred, externally delegated, and unresolved information. The resulting specifications encode non-degradation requirements, ownership assignments, cross-file dependencies, and file-level constraints. Repository generation proceeds under these compiled specifications while retaining flexibility over local engineering choices not fixed by the paper. PaperCompiler outperforms strong baselines on Paper2CodeBench, achieving a 13.8% relative improvement in reference-based fidelity (from 3.64 to 4.15) and reducing high-severity evaluator critiques (from 13.2% to 6.1%).

cs.CL