Thanks for LiveCodeBench — this is a constructive measurement note, not a bug report, and it starts by crediting the benchmark.
Credit first: #1 is a real lead
The leaderboard ranks by mean pass@1 over the same 1,055 problems, so the honest test of a rank gap is a paired t-test on the per-problem pass@1 differences (it matches the displayed metric exactly). Unlike some smaller benchmarks, LiveCodeBench has the sample size to resolve a real top gap: #1 O4-Mini (High), 87.30, genuinely separates from #2 — gap +2.56, paired p = 0.010. That's a real result, not noise.
The observation: ranks 2–6 are one statistical tie
Immediately below the real #1, five distinct positions are mutually indistinguishable:
| Rank |
Model |
mean pass@1 |
vs #2 (paired t p) |
| 1 |
O4-Mini (High) |
87.30 |
(tier 1, p=0.010 vs #2) |
| 2 |
O3 (High) |
84.74 |
— |
| 3 |
O4-Mini (Medium) |
84.45 |
0.778 |
| 4 |
DeepSeek-R1-0528 |
84.36 |
0.674 |
| 5 |
Gemini-2.5-Pro-06-05 |
84.27 |
0.647 |
| 6 |
Gemini-2.5-Pro-05-06 |
82.75 |
0.050 |
| 7 |
OpenReasoning-Nemotron-32B |
80.96 |
<0.001 |
Ranks 2–6 (O3, O4-Mini Med, DeepSeek-R1, both Gemini-2.5-Pro snapshots) are one group; the whole top 10 collapses to three statistical tiers ({#1}, {#2–#6}, {#7–#10}). So "ranked 2nd" and "ranked 6th" are, on this evidence, the same result — yet they read as five different ranks.
Suggestion
Group the leaderboard into significance tiers (or show a CI on mean pass@1), so five models within one tie aren't presented — and cited — as five measurably-different ranks.
Reproduce
Pure stdlib, deterministic, no model inference. Downloads the public per-problem grid (build/performances_generation.json), builds the 28×1,055 matrix, and runs the paired t-test tier structure:
#!/usr/bin/env python3
"""
Reproduce: on LiveCodeBench (code generation) the #1 lead is real, but ranks 2-6 are one tie.
LiveCodeBench ranks models by mean pass@1 over a fixed problem set. Because every model is scored on
the SAME problems, the honest test of a rank gap is a PAIRED test on the per-problem pass@1
differences (here a paired t-test — deterministic, and it matches the leaderboard's own
mean-pass@1 metric). The public per-problem grid (build/performances_generation.json) is a dense
28-model x 1055-problem matrix. Result: the #1 (O4-Mini High) genuinely separates from #2
(p<0.05) — the benchmark has the sample size to resolve a real top gap — but ranks 2 through 6
(a spread of ~2 points across five different models) are a single statistical tie for second.
No third-party deps, no model inference, no RNG. Deterministic. Pure stdlib.
"""
import json
import math
import urllib.request
import sys
URL = ("https://raw.githubusercontent.com/LiveCodeBench/livecodebench.github.io/"
"main/build/performances_generation.json")
def erfc_p(t):
# two-sided p-value from a t statistic; df ~ 1054 here so the normal approx is exact enough
return math.erfc(abs(t) / math.sqrt(2))
def main():
with urllib.request.urlopen(URL, timeout=120) as r:
perf = json.load(r)["performances"]
M = {}
for e in perf:
M.setdefault(e["model"], {})[e["question_id"]] = e["pass@1"]
models = list(M)
common = sorted(set.intersection(*[set(M[m]) for m in models]))
print(f"models={len(models)} problems common to all={len(common)}", file=sys.stderr)
def mean(m):
return sum(M[m][q] for q in common) / len(common)
def paired_p(a, b):
ds = [M[a][q] - M[b][q] for q in common]
n = len(ds)
md = sum(ds) / n
var = sum((x - md) ** 2 for x in ds) / (n - 1)
if var == 0:
return md, 1.0
return md, erfc_p(md / math.sqrt(var / n))
ranked = sorted(models, key=lambda m: -mean(m))
print(f"\nLiveCodeBench code-gen (n={len(common)} problems) — top 10 by mean pass@1:")
for i, m in enumerate(ranked[:10]):
print(f" {i+1:2}. {mean(m):5.2f} {m}")
# tier structure via adjacent paired t
print("\nStatistical tiers (adjacent paired t-test, top 10):")
tier = 1
tiers = [(ranked[0], 1)]
for i in range(1, min(10, len(ranked))):
_, p = paired_p(ranked[i - 1], ranked[i])
if p < 0.05:
tier += 1
tiers.append((ranked[i], tier))
for m, t in tiers:
print(f" tier {t}: {mean(m):5.2f} {m}")
# headline facts
_, p12 = paired_p(ranked[0], ranked[1])
print(f"\n#1 vs #2: gap {mean(ranked[0]) - mean(ranked[1]):+.2f} p={p12:.3f} "
f"({'REAL separation' if p12 < 0.05 else 'tied'})")
print("#2 vs #3/#4/#5:", ", ".join(
f"p={paired_p(ranked[1], ranked[i])[1]:.3f}" for i in (2, 3, 4)))
tier2 = [m for m, t in tiers if t == 2]
print(f"\nREPRODUCED: #1 is a real lead (p={p12:.3f}); ranks 2-{1+len(tier2)} are one "
f"statistical tie ({len(tier2)} models).")
return 0
if __name__ == "__main__":
sys.exit(main())
Prints the tables above and REPRODUCED: #1 is a real lead (p=0.010); ranks 2-6 are one statistical tie (5 models).
Thanks for LiveCodeBench — this is a constructive measurement note, not a bug report, and it starts by crediting the benchmark.
Credit first: #1 is a real lead
The leaderboard ranks by mean pass@1 over the same 1,055 problems, so the honest test of a rank gap is a paired t-test on the per-problem pass@1 differences (it matches the displayed metric exactly). Unlike some smaller benchmarks, LiveCodeBench has the sample size to resolve a real top gap: #1 O4-Mini (High), 87.30, genuinely separates from #2 — gap +2.56, paired p = 0.010. That's a real result, not noise.
The observation: ranks 2–6 are one statistical tie
Immediately below the real #1, five distinct positions are mutually indistinguishable:
Ranks 2–6 (O3, O4-Mini Med, DeepSeek-R1, both Gemini-2.5-Pro snapshots) are one group; the whole top 10 collapses to three statistical tiers ({#1}, {#2–#6}, {#7–#10}). So "ranked 2nd" and "ranked 6th" are, on this evidence, the same result — yet they read as five different ranks.
Suggestion
Group the leaderboard into significance tiers (or show a CI on mean pass@1), so five models within one tie aren't presented — and cited — as five measurably-different ranks.
Reproduce
Pure stdlib, deterministic, no model inference. Downloads the public per-problem grid (build/performances_generation.json), builds the 28×1,055 matrix, and runs the paired t-test tier structure:
Prints the tables above and REPRODUCED: #1 is a real lead (p=0.010); ranks 2-6 are one statistical tie (5 models).