Zerui Cheng

Zihan Zheng, Zerui Cheng, Zeyu Shen et al.

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. We introduce LiveCodeBench Pro, a benchmark composed of problems from Codeforces, ICPC, and IOI that are continuously updated to reduce the likelihood of data contamination. A team of Olympiad medalists annotates every problem for algorithmic categories and conducts a line-by-line analysis of failed model-generated submissions. Using this new data and benchmark, we find that frontier models still have significant limitations: without external tools, the best model achieves only 53% pass@1 on medium-difficulty problems and 0% on hard problems, domains where expert humans still excel. We also find that LLMs succeed at implementation-heavy problems but struggle with nuanced algorithmic reasoning and complex case analysis, often generating confidently incorrect justifications. High performance appears largely driven by implementation precision and tool augmentation, not superior reasoning. LiveCodeBench Pro thus highlights the significant gap to human grandmaster levels, while offering fine-grained diagnostics to steer future improvements in code-centric LLM reasoning.

Zerui Cheng, Edoardo Contente, Ben Finch et al.

The current paradigm of AI model distribution presents a fundamental dichotomy: models are either closed and API-gated, sacrificing transparency and local execution, or openly distributed, sacrificing monetization and control. We introduce OML(Open-access, Monetizable, and Loyal AI Model Serving), a primitive that enables a new distribution paradigm where models can be freely distributed for local execution while maintaining cryptographically enforced usage authorization. We are the first to introduce and formalize this problem, introducing rigorous security definitions tailored to the unique challenge of white-box model protection: model extraction resistance and permission forgery resistance. We prove fundamental bounds on the achievability of OML properties and characterize the complete design space of potential constructions, from obfuscation-based approaches to cryptographic solutions. To demonstrate practical feasibility, we present OML 1.0, a novel OML construction leveraging AI-native model fingerprinting coupled with crypto-economic enforcement mechanisms. Through extensive theoretical analysis and empirical evaluation, we establish OML as a foundational primitive necessary for sustainable AI ecosystems. This work opens a new research direction at the intersection of cryptography, machine learning, and mechanism design, with critical implications for the future of AI distribution and governance.

Jianzhu Yao, Hongxu Su, Taobo Liao et al.

Neural networks increasingly run on hardware outside the user's control (cloud GPUs, inference marketplaces). Yet ML-as-a-Service reveals little about what actually ran or whether returned outputs faithfully reflect the intended inputs. Users lack recourse against service downgrades (model swaps, quantization, graph rewrites, or discrepancies like altered ad embeddings). Verifying outputs is hard because floating-point(FP) execution on heterogeneous accelerators is inherently nondeterministic. Existing approaches are either impractical for real FP neural networks or reintroduce vendor trust. We present NAO: a Nondeterministic tolerance Aware Optimistic verification protocol that accepts outputs within principled operator-level acceptance regions rather than requiring bitwise equality. NAO combines two error models: (i) sound per-operator IEEE-754 worst-case bounds and (ii) tight empirical percentile profiles calibrated across hardware. Discrepancies trigger a Merkle-anchored, threshold-guided dispute game that recursively partitions the computation graph until one operator remains, where adjudication reduces to a lightweight theoretical-bound check or a small honest-majority vote against empirical thresholds. Unchallenged results finalize after a challenge window, without requiring trusted hardware or deterministic kernels. We implement NAO as a PyTorch-compatible runtime and a contract layer currently deployed on Ethereum Holesky testnet. The runtime instruments graphs, computes per-operator bounds, and runs unmodified vendor kernels in FP32 with negligible overhead (0.3% on Qwen3-8B). Across CNNs, Transformers and diffusion models on A100, H100, RTX6000, RTX4090, empirical thresholds are $10^2-10^3$ times tighter than theoretical bounds, and bound-aware adversarial attacks achieve 0% success. NAO reconciles scalability with verifiability for real-world heterogeneous ML compute.

Zerui Cheng, Stella Wohnig, Ruchika Gupta et al.

The meteoric rise of AI, with its rapidly expanding market capitalization, presents both transformative opportunities and critical challenges. Chief among these is the urgent need for a new, unified paradigm for trustworthy evaluation, as current benchmarks increasingly reveal critical vulnerabilities. Issues like data contamination and selective reporting by model developers fuel hype, while inadequate data quality control can lead to biased evaluations that, even if unintentionally, may favor specific approaches. As a flood of participants enters the AI space, this "Wild West" of assessment makes distinguishing genuine progress from exaggerated claims exceptionally difficult. Such ambiguity blurs scientific signals and erodes public confidence, much as unchecked claims would destabilize financial markets reliant on credible oversight from agencies like Moody's. In high-stakes human examinations (e.g., SAT, GRE), substantial effort is devoted to ensuring fairness and credibility; why settle for less in evaluating AI, especially given its profound societal impact? This position paper argues that the current laissez-faire approach is unsustainable. We contend that true, sustainable AI advancement demands a paradigm shift: a unified, live, and quality-controlled benchmarking framework robust by construction, not by mere courtesy and goodwill. To this end, we dissect the systemic flaws undermining today's AI evaluation, distill the essential requirements for a new generation of assessments, and introduce PeerBench (with its prototype implementation at https://www.peerbench.ai/), a community-governed, proctored evaluation blueprint that embodies this paradigm through sealed execution, item banking with rolling renewal, and delayed transparency. Our goal is to pave the way for evaluations that can restore integrity and deliver genuinely trustworthy measures of AI progress.

Zeshi Dai, Zimo Peng, Zerui Cheng et al.

We present CAIA, a benchmark exposing a critical blind spot in AI evaluation: the inability of state-of-the-art models to operate in adversarial, high-stakes environments where misinformation is weaponized and errors are irreversible. While existing benchmarks measure task completion in controlled settings, real-world deployment demands resilience against active deception. Using crypto markets as a testbed where $30 billion was lost to exploits in 2024, we evaluate 17 models on 178 time-anchored tasks requiring agents to distinguish truth from manipulation, navigate fragmented information landscapes, and make irreversible financial decisions under adversarial pressure. Our results reveal a fundamental capability gap: without tools, even frontier models achieve only 28% accuracy on tasks junior analysts routinely handle. Tool augmentation improves performance but plateaus at 67.4% versus 80% human baseline, despite unlimited access to professional resources. Most critically, we uncover a systematic tool selection catastrophe: models preferentially choose unreliable web search over authoritative data, falling for SEO-optimized misinformation and social media manipulation. This behavior persists even when correct answers are directly accessible through specialized tools, suggesting foundational limitations rather than knowledge gaps. We also find that Pass@k metrics mask dangerous trial-and-error behavior for autonomous deployment. The implications extend beyond crypto to any domain with active adversaries, e.g. cybersecurity, content moderation, etc. We release CAIA with contamination controls and continuous updates, establishing adversarial robustness as a necessary condition for trustworthy AI autonomy. The benchmark reveals that current models, despite impressive reasoning scores, remain fundamentally unprepared for environments where intelligence must survive active opposition.

Shang Zhou, Zihan Zheng, Kaiyuan Liu et al.

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 that this makes for an ideal test of general large language model capabilities and study whether they can do this reliably. We introduce AutoCode, which uses multiple rounds of validation to yield competition-grade problem statements and test cases. On held-out problems, AutoCode test suites approach 99% consistency with official judgments, a significant improvement over current state-of-the-art methods like HardTests, which achieve less than 81%. Furthermore, starting with a random seed problem, AutoCode can create novel variants with reference and brute-force solutions. By cross-verifying these generated solutions against test cases, we can further filter out malformed problems. Our system ensures high correctness, as verified by human experts. AutoCode successfully produces novel problems judged by Grandmaster-level (top 0.3%) competitive programmers to be of contest quality.