# When Elo Lies: Hidden Biases in Codeforces-Based Evaluation of Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.05891 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.05891/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- First posted on arXiv 5 Feb 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [GrandCode: Achieving Grandmaster Level in Competitive Programming via Agentic Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.02721/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve breakthroughs in complex reasoning, Codeforces-based Elo ratings have emerged as a prominent metric for evaluating competitive programming capabilities. However, these ratings are often reported without critical experimental details, leading to significant discrepancies illustrated by recent reports where the score of the same model version fluctuated by nearly 500 points. This paper presents a systematic empirical study on the hidden factors biasing Elo evaluations: (1) the temporal ordering of submissions, (2) contest difficulty selection, and (3) run to run stochastic variability of LLMs. Utilizing a controlled benchmark of 37 recent Codeforces contests and 13,691 generated test cases, we demonstrate that Elo scores are highly sensitive to these parameters. Our findings reveal that varying submission orders can shift scores by 394 points, while contest selection can cause differences of up to 1,122 points for the same model. Run to run performance exhibits substantial instability, with a maximum difference of 349 points in mean scores observed when evaluating identical contests. We conclude that direct Elo comparisons are unreliable and potentially misleading without strict standardization and transparent reporting of experimental settings.