Are Large Language Models a Threat to Programming Platforms? An Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Competitive programming platforms such as LeetCode, Codeforces, and HackerRank provide challenges to evaluate programming skills. Technical recruiters frequently utilize these platforms as a criterion for screening resumes. With the recent advent of advanced Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Meta AI, there is a need to assess their problem-solving ability on the programming platforms. Aims: This study aims to assess LLMs’ capability to solve diverse programming challenges across programming platforms with varying difficulty levels, providing insights into their performance in real-time and offline scenarios, comparing them to human programmers, and identifying potential threats to established norms in programming platforms. Method: This study utilized 98 problems from LeetCode and 126 from Codeforces, covering 15 categories and varying difficulty levels. Then, we participated in nine online contests from Codeforces and LeetCode. Finally, two certification tests were attempted on HackerRank to gain insights into LLMs’ real-time performance. Prompts were used to guide LLMs in solving problems, and iterative feedback mechanisms were employed. We also tried to find any possible correlation among the LLMs in different scenarios. Results: LLMs generally achieved higher success rates on LeetCode (e.g., ChatGPT at 71.43%) but faced challenges on Codeforces. While excelling in HackerRank certifications, they struggled in virtual contests, especially on Codeforces. Despite diverse performance trends, ChatGPT consistently performed well across categories, yet all LLMs struggled with harder problems and lower acceptance rates. In LeetCode archive problems, LLMs generally outperformed users in time efficiency and memory usage but exhibited moderate performance in live contests, particularly in harder Codeforces contests compared to humans. Conclusions: While not necessarily a threat, the performance of LLMs on programming platforms is indeed a cause for concern. With the prospect of more efficient models emerging in the future, programming platforms need to address this issue promptly.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".