While recent research increasingly emphasizes the value of human-LLM collaboration in competitive programming and proposes numerous empirical methods, a comprehensive understanding remains elusive due to the fragmented nature of existing studies and their use of diverse, application-specific human feedback. Thus, our work serves a three-fold purpose: First, we present the first taxonomy of human feedback consolidating the entire programming process, which promotes fine-grained evaluation. Second, we introduce ELABORATIONSET, a novel programming dataset specifically designed for human-LLM collaboration, meticulously annotated to enable large-scale simulated human feedback and facilitate cost-effective real human interaction studies. Third, we introduce ELABORATION, a novel benchmark to facilitate a thorough assessment of human-LLM competitive programming. With ELABORATION, we pinpoint strengthes and weaknesses of existing methods, thereby setting the foundation for furture improvement. Our dataset and code will be openly released.

Physics problems constitute a significant aspect of reasoning, necessitating complicated reasoning ability and abundant physics knowledge. However, existing large language models (LLMs) frequently fail due to a lack of knowledge or incorrect knowledge application. To mitigate these issues, we propose Physics Reasoner, a knowledge-augmented framework to solve physics problems with LLMs. Specifically, the proposed framework constructs a comprehensive formula set to provide explicit physics knowledge and utilizes checklists containing detailed instructions to guide effective knowledge application. Namely, given a physics problem, Physics Reasoner solves it through three stages: problem analysis, formula retrieval, and guided reasoning. During the process, checklists are employed to enhance LLMs’ self-improvement in the analysis and reasoning stages. Empirically, Physics Reasoner mitigates the issues of insufficient knowledge and incorrect application, achieving state-of-the-art performance on SciBench with an average accuracy improvement of 5.8%.