Competitive Programming with Large Reasoning Models - Summary

Introduction and Context

The academic paper, titled “Competitive Programming with Large Reasoning Models“, presents compelling findings that illuminate how reinforcing the capabilities of large language models, especially through advanced RL-based training, can significantly boost performance in coding-oriented tasks. These tasks include solving International Olympiad in Informatics (IOI) problems, tackling CodeForces challenges, and excelling on internal real-world coding benchmarks such as SWE-bench Verified. In other words, the paper reveals the evolution from more domain-specific pipelines toward general-purpose RL-based solutions that autonomously discover highly effective test-time strategies.

Written in 2025, this work observes competitive programming as a valuable benchmark space for evaluating advanced reasoning, systematic thinking, debugging, and code generation—capabilities that can translate more broadly to other advanced tasks. Over the course of 49 pages (with appended data), the authors specifically discuss three main models in the “o-series”: OpenAI o1, OpenAI o1-ioi, and OpenAI o3. They also draw comparisons to earlier systems, including AlphaCode and the code-generating model often referred to in the text as gpt-4o (a non-reasoning LLM). While o1-ioi obtains its strength in part from domain-specific “hand-engineered” test-time heuristics, the newer o3 scales up RL training so effectively that it discards the need for human-engineered heuristics, surpassing the results previously attained by specialized systems.

2502.06807v1 Download

Motivation for Large Reasoning Models

Competitive programming is renowned for demanding significant algorithmic insight, reasoning, and problem decomposition. An AI that tackles these problems effectively must be able to reason through multiple steps, correct itself, and simulate or evaluate proposed solutions. Recent progress on code generation (e.g., the earlier Codex 2 and AlphaCode 7, 6) laid the basis for large-scale code-focused LLMs, but typically required sampling up to hundreds of thousands or even a million candidate solutions for a single problem. This sampling-based method, the authors argue, is not necessarily the most elegant or efficient approach, and it still anchored upon heavy reliance on specialized strategies like clustering solutions, re-ranking them, and removing duplicates. Meanwhile, a new paradigm—reinforcement learning with chain-of-thought reasoning—can empower the models to themselves handle test-time strategy, drastically reducing or eliminating the reliance on handcrafted domain heuristics.

Organization of the Paper

The paper’s outline spans:

Introduction
OpenAI o1:
- Overview, training specifics, CodeForces rating comparisons
OpenAI o1-ioi:
- Domain-specific RL fine-tuning
- AlphaCode-like test-time strategy
- CodeForces and IOI 2024 results
OpenAI o3:
- Pure RL scaling, no specialized heuristics
- Outperforms o1, o1-ioi across benchmarks
Software Engineering Evaluations:
- HackerRank Astra
- SWE-bench Verified
Conclusion
Appendices and references, containing additional details on ratings, code breakdowns, and example solutions from AI in the IOI environment.

Below, we expand in detail on each section, weaving in relevant observations, data points, and references (encoded as clickable links) from the paper’s text.

Detailed Summary of Key Findings

1. The Emergence of Reinforcement Learning for Reasoning

Before embarking on the specialized aspects of the o-series, the authors situate the progress in code generation:

AlphaCode 7, 6 introduced large-scale sampling to produce a wide range of solutions (up to a million) and used a post-hoc ranking mechanism to pick the top 10.
OpenAI Codex 2 showed that scaling the underlying language model size yields log-linear improvements in pass rates, demonstrating a strong impetus to scale models for better performance.
Chain-of-thought prompting 16 proved pivotal in letting language models spin out intermediate reasoning steps, refining their logic before finalizing an answer.

The new direction advanced in the paper is to use reinforcement learning that trains the model to reason more deeply about problems and potential solutions. Instead of passively generating code upon an input, the model obtains repeated feedback signals that help it polish or debug solutions step-by-step. Over multiple RL training updates (where each potential chain-of-thought is rewarded if it leads to a correct solution), the model internalizes advanced self-reflection and code-crafting strategies.

2. OpenAI o1: A Baseline Large Reasoning Model

OpenAI o1 introduced a shift from purely generative language modeling to an RL-based approach that encourages chain-of-thought reasoning. It fosters a multi-step problem-solving procedure. The authors highlight:

Chain-of-thought: The model methodically works “on paper”—often hidden from the final user but crucial for the model’s internal reasoning. For instance, to solve a graph problem, the model enumerates possible approaches (DFS vs. BFS, etc.) and identifies corner cases before finalizing code.
External Tools: The model can query external systems for code execution or compilation checks 14. This iteration allows o1 to refine its output as it tests intermediate solutions in a sandbox.

When tested on CodeForces contests (Division 1 from late 2023 and 2024), o1 attained a rating of 1673, ranking near the 89th percentile among participants. The paper underscores that a simpler non-reasoning model “gpt-4o” only achieved a rating of 808 (~11th percentile). Meanwhile, an earlier checkpoint “o1-preview” got 1258 (62nd percentile). These leaps emphasize how chain-of-thought reasoning, combined with iterative code testing, confers real advantage in tackling more complex or subtle algorithmic tasks.

CodeForces Evaluation Methodology

In the appendices, the paper clarifies the following about the CodeForces evaluation:

Substantial coverage of post-cut-off “Division 1” contests ensures minimal data contamination.
The model is allowed up to 10 attempts per problem, similar to the approach in AlphaCode, though the authors note differences in how partial feedback is used.
The final CodeForces rating is computed by simulating how the model would rank in each contest. They average the model’s rank-based likelihood across these contests, using a rating system akin to Elo 8, 9, 10.

3. OpenAI o1-ioi: Human-Engineered Domain-Specificity

While o1 is a general-purpose reasoning model, the authors next describe OpenAI o1-ioi, a system specifically fine-tuned for the 2024 International Olympiad in Informatics (IOI). The modifications revolve around:

Continued RL Training on Coding: They ramp up the model’s exposure to challenging algorithmic tasks in C++ and IOI-like formats, enabling it to parse or produce solutions in an environment reminiscent of IOI rules.
Hand-Crafted Test-Time Strategy: Modeled after AlphaCode, the approach slices an IOI problem into subtasks (which is standard in IOI scoring), samples a huge solution set (e.g., 10,000 solutions per subtask), uses model-generated test inputs to cluster solutions, and re-ranks them, selecting 50 final solutions. This procedure aims to exploit partial scoring and subtask-based constraints.

CodeForces Performance of o1-ioi

The same rating system used for o1 is employed to evaluate o1-ioi:

Basic filtering that discards solutions failing public CodeForces tests bumps the rating to 2092 (96th percentile).
The full “clustering and reranking” pipeline yields a rating of 2214 (98th percentile).
This surpasses even advanced human players on CodeForces, highlighting the power of domain specialization.

IOI 2024 Live Competition Results

The research team, with permission from the IOI committee, entered the o1-ioi system into the 2024 IOI. Under standard constraints (50 submissions per problem, 10 hours total for 6 tasks), the system scored 213 points, landing in the 49th percentile among human contestants. Though not close to winning, it demonstrates an AI’s capacity to reasonably address official IOI tasks. By relaxing the 50-submission limit to 10,000, the system soared to a gold medal–level score of 362.14, illustrating the approach’s potential if unconstrained by typical IOI rules.

Despite these achievements, o1-ioi still depends on substantial human-driven heuristics, reminiscent of specialized engineering in earlier generation systems. The authors raise an obvious question: What if we harness scale and general RL to discover these heuristics autonomously?

4. OpenAI o3: A More Scaled, General-Purpose LRM

OpenAI o3 is the natural successor to these earlier efforts, though the paper clarifies: “We only have access to an early checkpoint of o3, not the fully polished release.” The hallmark of o3 is that it benefits from a drastically scaled trifecta:

Expanded RL Compute: The model sees more training iterations, bigger or more advanced reward shaping, and perhaps billions more tokens in tasks like self-play or self-debugging.
End-to-End Strategy Elicitation: Instead of relying on a specialized pipeline, o3 spontaneously devises test-time strategies, including cross-checking its own solutions with brute-force tests or modular verification steps.
Generalization: The emergent strategy is domain-general. No handcrafted step specifically addresses IOI’s subtask structure or CodeForces specifics. Similar to how advanced LLMs emerged with self-consistency, o3 exhibits remarkable synergy between chain-of-thought and RL.

CodeForces: 2724 Rating (99.8th Percentile)

The early o3 checkpoint outstrips both o1 (1673 rating) and the domain-tuned o1-ioi (2214 rating). Achieving 2724, it ranks among elite CodeForces participants worldwide, in the top 0.2%. The paper includes a performance scatterplot showing o3’s solve rate (≈70–80% across tough Division 1 contests) and how only a handful of the best humans in the world maintain solve rates above 85%.

IOI 2024: Surpasses the Gold Threshold

A later checkpoint of o3 was tested retroactively on the same IOI 2024 tasks. Under identical constraints (50 submissions per problem), o3 achieved 395.64 points, significantly exceeding the ~360 threshold for an IOI gold medal. This comfortably beats o1-ioi’s 213 points under the same constraints, which underscores how massive RL training can spontaneously produce an internal test-time pipeline—writing brute-force checks, verifying them, concluding an efficient solution—without the developer painstakingly scripting that pipeline.

5. Broader Software Engineering Evaluations

While the paper’s main focus lies on classical competitive programming, the authors also present results on two more “industry-oriented” benchmarks:

HackerRank Astra: A set of 65 project-oriented tasks designed around frameworks like React.js, Django, Node.js, etc. The emphasis is on multi-file, real-world coding scenarios, beyond short standalone scripts.
- OpenAI o1 obtains: pass@1 of ~63.92% (up from gpt-4o’s 50.91% and o1-preview’s 60.89%).
- Average score improvement from ~50.91% to ~75.80%.
SWE-bench Verified5, 11: A curated set of 500 real GitHub issues, free of ambiguous statements or flawed test harnesses. The authors tested a subset of these tasks with a maximum of 5 attempts per problem.
- o1 surpasses earlier “o1-preview” by 8.6%.
- o3 leaps an additional ~22.8% beyond o1, underscoring that advanced reasoning helps not only in purely algorithmic tasks but also in real-world bug fixing or feature addition.

These software engineering results, the paper contends, demonstrate that “chain-of-thought reasoning” is beneficial not just for contrived puzzle-like tasks but also for day-to-day coding tasks that might require debugging, system design, and cross-checking code. The model’s iterative approach, shaped via RL, is key.

Methodological Highlights

A crucial theme in the work is how the authors achieved these results. Directly sampling massive sets of solutions is replaced or supplemented by the model’s own test-time emergent strategies. Here are major methodological elements that stand out:

Reinforcement Learning: An iterative process:
- The model proposes a solution plus an internal chain-of-thought.
- It receives reward signals based on compilation success, correctness on samples, or final acceptance.
- It updates model parameters to optimize for maximizing solution correctness.
Chain-of-Thought: The model “thinks” in textual form, enumerating partial solutions, exploring different angles, possibly referencing known algorithms. This textual record is hidden. The final answer surfaces only after the chain-of-thought is done. The chain-of-thought can be used to generate code.
Tool Usage14: The environment includes a safe code-execution sandbox. The model can:
- Generate code.
- Compile and run that code.
- See if it passes the current test set.
- Modify or refine the code based on feedback.
Self-Evaluation: Particularly in o3, the authors observe the model spontaneously generating simpler “brute force” solutions to cross-check the outputs of the more optimized solution. This emergent phenomenon reduces reliance on explicit clustering or re-ranking by humans, effectively replicating the strategy that specialized pipelines used to implement by hand.

Discussion of Results and Implications

The authors emphasize that scaling (both in model size and RL compute) yields emergent self-organization within the model’s chain-of-thought. This phenomenon is reminiscent of how purely generative LLMs can exhibit emergent abilities once they exceed certain parameter thresholds. However, the synergy of reasoned chain-of-thought with RL feedback is distinct because it endows the model with repeated opportunities to debug itself.

From a broader vantage, the success at IOI 2024 suggests that AI is edging closer to top-tier problem-solving performance, even in specialized spheres. The paper notes:

Human-coded heuristics (like o1-ioi used) can be outperformed by a fully RL-sourced approach (like o3).
The majority of the present advantage arises from flexible test-time reasoning. The model’s ability to create, evaluate, and refine solutions at inference—coupled with large compute—makes it extremely potent.
In environments with constraints akin to real human contests (like maximum submission counts), the best domain-general model can still surpass a domain-specific model if the scale of RL training is large enough.

Yet, they acknowledge that certain forms of fine engineering might remain beneficial, especially if we are limited to a tiny submission budget. For instance, if only 1–2 submissions are allowed, it might be risky to rely exclusively on an RL model that tries multiple partial solutions. But the paper’s results demonstrate that with 50 submissions, a scaled model can do extremely well without any special recipes.

Conclusion and Prospective Directions

The paper closes with an optimistic outlook: as large reasoning models become more capable, they will likely automate more rigorous tasks across science, math, code, or any domain requiring systematic multi-step reasoning. Instead of building specialized solutions, the authors propose continuing to scale general-purpose reinforcement learning for chain-of-thought processes, foreseeing that these universal approaches naturally spawn domain-specific heuristics on demand.

Key Takeaways

Reinforcement Learning + Chain-of-Thought: This synergy is a potent approach for advanced coding tasks.
General vs. Domain-Specific: Domain-specific solutions (like o1-ioi) can be bested by purely general RL solutions (like o3) if the RL is sufficiently scaled.
IOI & CodeForces: The models achieve near top-tier performance, with o3 crossing 99.8th percentile on CodeForces and surpassing gold medal thresholds on IOI 2024 tasks under standard submission constraints.
Real-World Engineering: The methods are not limited to puzzle-based tasks but extend to HackerRank Astra and SWE-bench Verified.

Clickable References

Throughout this summary, references are linked directly to their sources, ensuring that readers can examine the original documents if they wish:

Elaborating on Methodological Details (Extended Discussion)

Below is a more in-depth look at specific sections, aiming to illustrate the kind of intricacy the paper devotes to each part. This section serves those enthusiasts curious about the underlying algorithms and test harnesses.

RL for Programming Tasks

The concept of using RL for code generation is elaborated upon in multiple sections. The paper references how each attempt by the model to produce a chain-of-thought and final code solution is graded on test examples. If the code fails, the chain-of-thought plus solution is penalized; if it passes, it is rewarded. Over thousands or millions of episodes, the model experiences a wide range of algorithmic tasks, learning to systematically break down problems, avoid or handle corner cases, and refine partial solutions. This approach was partly inspired by earlier efforts in general RL for reasoners (e.g., 3, 15).

The o1 vs. o1-ioi Distinction

While o1 sets the ground for an RL-based chain-of-thought system, the authors noticed they could push its performance further for specialized tasks like the IOI. The resulting system, o1-ioi, introduced heavy manual intervention:

Splitting tasks into subtasks and generating 10,000 solutions for each.
Using model-generated inputs to cluster solutions.
Re-ranking solutions to guess the best ones.

This pipeline is powerful but hardly orthogonal to the overall strategy: it’s basically a harness that forces the model to use a mixture of “divide-and-conquer” and “sample heavily.” The major shortcoming is that it relies on a carefully tuned external mechanism. By contrast, the new o3 learns to do many of these steps internally (writing test scripts, verifying partial outputs, etc.).

Fine-tuning vs. Emergent Reasoning in o3

At the heart of the paper’s argument is the notion that if you scale RL enough, the system spontaneously picks up domain heuristics. They depict an example: the model attempts a problem that might require verifying an output for correctness. Rather than trusting a single final solution, the model tries a brute-force approach on small test sizes. Then it cross-references the brute-force solution with the main solution to ensure the outputs match. This emergent plan is reminiscent of how a handcrafted approach might do it, but the difference is that the approach arises inside the chain-of-thought.

Extended Observations on IOI Subtasks and Performance

The International Olympiad in Informatics (IOI) typically presents 6 tasks, each subdivided into subtasks. Competitors can score partial points for solving some subtasks. The authors show:

o1-ioi with only 50 submissions got 213 points (49th percentile).
If allowed 10,000 submissions, it soared to about 362.14 points, surpassing the ~360 gold medal threshold.

This overall indicates that the model can indeed produce gold medal solutions, but it often requires enormous submission volume to converge on them. Meanwhile, the next model, o3, crosses 395.64 points with just 50 submissions, i.e., it independently discovered effective strategies for subtask coverage and solution refinement in fewer rolls of the dice. As a direct result:

“These results demonstrate that o3 outperforms o1-ioi without relying on IOI-specific, hand-crafted test-time strategies.”

Hence, it points the way for future participants that might integrate large-scale RL solutions without needing a specialized pipeline.

Potential Limitations

Although the paper celebrates these successes, it also acknowledges some limitations or constraints that might hinder real-world adoption:

Inference Cost: Because the model’s chain-of-thought is extensive, the computational overhead at inference time can be steep, especially if we allow the model to do multiple iterations (compilation, test runs, etc.).
Submission Limits: Real-world or certain competition settings place severe limitations on the number of times code can be tested or run. Models that rely on repeated attempts might suffer if restricted to fewer tries.
Potential Overfitting to Certain Benchmarks: The authors tried to mitigate data contamination by focusing on post-cut-off problems, but the risk of partial overlap or memorization remains. They used embedding-based checks to reduce contamination but it being a large model, the risk can never be zero.

Nevertheless, the authors see these trade-offs as well within reason, in light of the performance leaps gained.

Broader Impact and Future Outlook

The paper’s conclusion extends beyond the immediate domain of coding challenges:

Science & Mathematics: The same chain-of-thought + RL approach can be harnessed in advanced mathematics or physics derivations, where multi-step solutions or proofs are needed.
Software Engineering: The results on HackerRank Astra and SWE-bench Verified demonstrate that the approach can meaningfully tackle real bug fixes and feature requests, not just short puzzle scripts. The capacity to automatically test, refine, and cross-verify code is crucial in robust software generation.
Safety & Compliance: More advanced reasoning equates to the model performing more tasks effectively. However, the authors point out that careful guardrails and safety mechanisms are needed, especially for models that can execute code. They reference the idea of a “secure environment” to isolate the model’s code from potentially hazardous side effects.

The authors are optimistic that “o-series large reasoning models will unlock many new use cases for AI in science, coding, math, and many other fields,” provided the approach is responsibly guided and thoroughly supervised.