A Token-Efficient Recursive Language Model Implementation and Benchmark

Background

In December 2025, Zhang, Kraska, and Khattab proposed Recursive Language Models (RLMs): store input data as a variable in a Python REPL rather than pasting it into the context window. The model writes code to query the data; attention runs only on the results - search hits, filtered rows, extracted snippets. A 7M-character document becomes as accessible as a 7K one, navigated through code rather than read wholesale.

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Standard LLM │ │ │ │ [System prompt] │ │ [500,000 tokens of raw context] ← you pay for all of it │ [Question] │ │ → Answer (maybe right, maybe not) │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Recursive LLM (RLM) │ │ │ │ input_0 = "<500k chars stored in REPL>" ← never in prompt │ Task: "Count errors in last hour" │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ LLM writes: │ │ │ │ errors = re.findall(r'\[ERROR\].*', input_0) │ │ cutoff = datetime.now() - timedelta(hours=1) │ │ FINAL(len([e for e in errors if parse_time(e) > cutoff])) │ │ │ → Code runs, answer returned. ~4k tokens total. │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

The original paper validated this on a few tasks. This post extends the evaluation to 12 tasks across 3 model sizes, describes a leaner inference loop, and reports accuracy, token usage, latency, and cost per query for everything. Code is open-source.

If you're already familiar with RLMs as a concept, feel free to skip to the implementation.

Using code execution instead of pure token generation for LLM reasoning has come up independently in several places.

Code-as-action agents

smolagents (Hugging Face, 2024) proposed agents that write Python code at each step instead of selecting from a fixed tool schema. Both smolagents and RLMs treat the Python runtime as the model's interface. The difference: smolagents targets multi-tool orchestration; RLMs focus on a single REPL with data already loaded.

Production systems using code-based retrieval

Anthropic's improved web search (2026) uses the same pattern in production: Claude writes and executes code to filter search results before presenting them - the same tradeoff RLMs make for local data, deployed at scale in a commercial product.

The Model Context Protocol (MCP) and the Universal Tool Calling Protocol standardize how models access code execution across providers, lowering the barrier to deploying RLM-style patterns in production.

Context window limitations

Luo et al. (2025) show that LLM accuracy degrades as context length increases (context window rot) even when the answer is right there. Anyone who's used AI coding agents has seen this. Hennie de Harder (2025) has a good walkthrough of applying RLMs to work around it. RLMs sidestep this by design: the model never attends over the raw input.

How is this different from ReAct?

ReAct (Yao et al., 2022) interleaves reasoning and action steps: think, act, observe, repeat. Each step appends to the conversation, so context grows linearly. The model picks from a fixed tool schema at each step. RLMs are narrower and cheaper: the data lives in a REPL variable, the model writes one block of Python code (not a multi-turn chain), and the result comes back in 1-2 iterations. No tool selection, no observation parsing, no growing context. ReAct is a general agent loop; an RLM is a single code-generation call with a sandbox.

RLM implementations and extensions

Prime Intellect independently scaled RLMs and saw similar token efficiency gains on long-context tasks. @realmcore_ built an RLM specifically for coding tasks, showing the pattern works beyond the retrieval and analytics tasks in the original paper.

minRLM Implementation

The reference implementation appends code and output to the conversation each iteration, so context grows with every step. minRLM does it differently:

• Entropy profiling - before the model sees anything, we compute a compression-based entropy map of the input using zlib. The context is split into 20 sections, each scored by compression ratio at 500-char resolution. Sections with high entropy (unique, diverse content) get flagged as spikes. This map is injected into the system prompt so the model knows where to search before writing a single line of code. A needle in a 7MB haystack shows up as an entropy spike - the model can skip straight to it.
• Context preview - a head/mid/tail sample (400+300+500 chars) gives the model the data's structure and format without dumping the full input. Combined with the entropy map, this replaces the reference implementation's approach of feeding raw context into the prompt.
• Flat token cost - one structured system prompt with typed code patterns. The model picks the pattern and usually finishes in 1-2 iterations. Context never enters the conversation - only the entropy map and preview do.
• Task routing - Step 0 in every prompt: detect whether the task is structured data, MCQ, code retrieval, code generation, creative writing, math, or search & extract. Each type has a specialized code pattern. If none match, the model classifies via sub_llm and falls back to the closest pattern.
• Two-pass search - for needle-in-haystack tasks, if the first search pass returns "unknown" or "insufficient", a second pass automatically runs with new keywords extracted from the first-pass evidence. This catches cases where the answer requires following a chain of references.
• Reasoning-first - # REASONING: comment before code generation. Helps on tasks that need planning (multi-hop retrieval, complex codebases). from minrlm import RLM gives you the reasoning variant by default.
• Sub-LLM delegation - for MCQ and extraction tasks, the outer model gathers targeted evidence via search(), then passes it to a focused sub_llm(task, evidence) call. The sub-LLM reasons over a small, relevant context instead of the full input. For structured data, regex counting replaces LLM "reading" entirely.
• DockerREPL - every execution runs in a fresh container with a seccomp profile blocking network and filesystem syscalls. Stdlib only (Python 3.14). The reference uses local exec by default.

from minrlm import RLM

client = RLM(model="gpt-5-mini")
answer = client.completion(
    task="Which user had the most errors in the last 7 days?",
    context=open("huge_log_file.txt").read()  # can be 10MB+
)
# Data never enters the prompt. Token cost stays flat regardless of context size.

Instead of attending over 400K characters, the model reads the entropy map ("section 14 has a spike"), checks the preview for format, and writes targeted search() calls. For structured data, it auto-detects the delimiter and counts with regex - no hallucinations, no substring traps. The full input never enters the prompt at any point.

Experimental Setup

The eval framework (eval/ in the repo) runs any RLM strategy against 12 tasks and records accuracy, token count, latency, and cost per query. Any runner implementing the interface can be plugged in. Primary benchmark: gpt-5-mini, three runners, 50 queries per task (1,800 evaluations). Cross-model results in Model Scaling.

GPT-5-mini summary: accuracy, token usage, and latency across all 12 tasks.

Tasks & Results GPT-5-mini · click to expand

All results in this section use GPT-5-mini. Each task shows the actual code generated and an honest look at where the approach works and where it doesn't. For GPT-5-nano and GPT-5.2 results, see Model Scaling.

Large-context retrieval

# REASONING: Search the 7MB document for keywords from the criteria,
# gather snippets, and ask sub_llm to extract the institution name.
import re, json, datetime, collections

head = input_0[:500]
tail = input_0[-1000:]
kws = re.findall(r'\b[a-z]{4,}\b', (head + tail + task_0).lower())
kws = list(dict.fromkeys(kws))[:20]

snippets = []
for kw in kws:
    for match, before, after in search(input_0, kw):
        snippets.append(before + match + after)
    if len(snippets) >= 10: break

combined = "\n---\n".join(snippets[:10])
answer = sub_llm(task_0, combined)
FINAL(answer)

# REASONING: Extract keywords from head/tail of input_0, gather search snippets,
# look for numeric values, otherwise delegate to sub_llm on focused evidence.
import re, json, datetime, collections

head = input_0[:500]
tail = input_0[-1000:]
kws = re.findall(r'\b[a-z]{4,}\b', (head + tail + task_0).lower())
kws = list(dict.fromkeys(kws))[:20]

snippets = []
for kw in kws:
    for match, before, after in search(input_0, kw):
        snippets.append(before + match + after)
    if len(snippets) >= 10: break

combined = "\n---\n".join(snippets[:10])
nums = re.findall(r'\b(\d{4,})\b', combined)
if nums:
    FINAL(nums[0])
answer = sub_llm(task_0, combined)
FINAL(answer)

# REASONING: Scan all function definitions, ask sub_llm to identify the right one,
# then extract and return its full source context.
import re, json, datetime, collections

is_code_task = any(k in task_0.lower() for k in ["codebase", "exact function", "code snippet"])

# Scan for all function definitions across Python, JS, TS, Java
all_funcs  = re.findall(r'^\s*def (\w+)\(', input_0, re.MULTILINE)
all_funcs += re.findall(r'\bfunction\s+(\w+)\s*\(', input_0)
all_funcs += re.findall(r'\b(\w+)\s*[=:]\s*(?:async\s+)?function\s*\(', input_0)
unique = list(dict.fromkeys(all_funcs))

# Build signature list for sub_llm to pick from
sigs = []
for nm in unique[:80]:
    sm = re.search(r'^\s*(def ' + re.escape(nm) + r'\([^)]*\).*?:)', input_0, re.MULTILINE)
    if sm: sigs.append(sm.group(1).strip())

func = sub_llm(f"{task_0}\nAll functions:\n{chr(10).join(sigs)}\nReply ONLY the function name.",
               input_0[:10000]).strip()
func = re.sub(r'[^a-zA-Z0-9_]', '', func)

r = search(input_0, "function " + func)
if r:
    m, b, a = r[0]
    FINAL(func + "||" + b[-800:] + m + a[:5000])

Long-document MCQ & structured data

# REASONING: Use MCQ pattern - gather evidence snippets from the 330K char novel,
# then call sub_llm on curated evidence instead of the full text.
import re, json, datetime, collections

sz = len(input_0)   # 329,526 - triggers "large" path

# Extract terms from both question and answer options
opts = re.findall(r'[A-D]\)\s*(.+?)(?=\s*[A-D]\)|$)', task_0, re.DOTALL)
opt_terms = re.findall(r'\b[A-Z][a-z]{3,}\b|\b[a-z]{5,}\b', " ".join(opts))[:15]
q_terms   = re.findall(r'\b[A-Z][a-z]{3,}\b|\b[a-z]{5,}\b', task_0)[:10]
terms = list(dict.fromkeys(q_terms + opt_terms))[:25]

# Search for each term, deduplicate by page position
snips, seen = [], set()
for t in terms:
    for m,b,a in search(input_0, t)[:4]:
        pk = len(b)//2000
        if pk not in seen:
            snips.append(b[-2000:] + m + a[:2000]); seen.add(pk)

evidence = input_0[:3000] + "\n...\n" + "\n---\n".join(snips[:30])
answer = sub_llm(task_0, evidence[:50000])
answer = (answer or "A").strip().upper()
FINAL(answer)

# REASONING: Large codebase MCQ - gather evidence by searching for terms from
# both the question and answer choices, then call sub_llm on curated snippets.
import re, json, datetime, collections

opts = re.findall(r'[A-D]\)\s*(.+?)(?=\s*[A-D]\)|$)', task_0, re.DOTALL)
opt_terms = re.findall(r'\b[A-Z][a-z]{3,}\b|\b[a-z]{5,}\b', " ".join(opts))[:15]
q_terms   = re.findall(r'\b[A-Z][a-z]{3,}\b|\b[a-z]{5,}\b', task_0)[:10]
terms = list(dict.fromkeys(q_terms + opt_terms))[:25]

snips, seen = [], set()
for t in terms:
    for m,b,a in search(input_0, t)[:4]:
        pk = len(b)//2000
        if pk not in seen: snips.append(b[-2000:]+m+a[:2000]); seen.add(pk)

# Include README/docs for architectural context
for doc_kw in ["README", "Abstract", "Introduction"]:
    for m,b,a in search(input_0, doc_kw)[:1]:
        snips.append(b[-1000:]+m+a[:3000])

evidence = input_0[:3000] + "\n...\n" + "\n---\n".join(snips[:30])
answer = sub_llm(task_0, evidence[:50000])
FINAL(answer.strip().upper())

# REASONING: Count exact whole-word occurrences of "True" and "False" in input_0.
import re, json, datetime, collections

# STRUCTURED DATA pattern - auto-detect delimiter from data
sample = input_0[:5000]
if "||" in sample: delim = "||"
elif "\t" in sample: delim = "\t"
elif "|" in sample: delim = "|"
else: delim = ","

false_count = len(re.findall(r'\bFalse\b', input_0))
true_count  = len(re.findall(r'\bTrue\b',  input_0))

if   false_count > true_count: relation = "more common than"
elif false_count < true_count: relation = "less common than"
else:                          relation = "same frequency as"

FINAL(f"Answer: False is {relation} True")

Reasoning & open-ended

# REASONING: Brute-force enumerate all (x,y) pairs in range and count solutions.
import re, json, datetime, collections

count = 0
for x in range(-100, 101):
    for y in range(-100, 101):
        if 12*x*x - x*y - 6*y*y == 0:
            count += 1

FINAL(str(count))

# REASONING: Implement CRR binomial tree, explicit finite differences,
# and Longstaff-Schwartz Monte Carlo in pure Python. Benchmark convergence.
import re, json, datetime, collections, math, random, time, statistics

def crr_binomial_american(S, K, r, q, sigma, T, N, option_type='put'):
    dt = T / N
    u  = math.exp(sigma * math.sqrt(dt))
    d  = 1 / u
    p  = (math.exp((r-q)*dt) - d) / (u - d)
    disc = math.exp(-r * dt)
    # Build price tree and work backwards with early exercise
    prices = [S * (u**j) * (d**(N-j)) for j in range(N+1)]
    values = [max(K - st, 0) if option_type=='put' else max(st - K, 0) for st in prices]
    for i in range(N-1, -1, -1):
        prices = [S * (u**j) * (d**(i-j)) for j in range(i+1)]
        cont   = [disc*(p*values[j+1] + (1-p)*values[j]) for j in range(i+1)]
        ex     = [max(K-st, 0) if option_type=='put' else max(st-K,0) for st in prices]
        values = [max(c, e) for c, e in zip(cont, ex)]
    return values[0]

# ... Finite differences and Longstaff-Schwartz MC follow ...
FINAL("american_option_notebook_generated")

# REASONING: MCQ with no context - delegate to sub_llm for domain reasoning.
import re

# Extract valid answer letters from the question
valid = [c for c in "ABCD" if f"{c})" in task_0]

# No context - call sub_llm directly on the question
answer = sub_llm(task_0, "")
answer = (answer or valid[0]).strip().upper()

# Sanitize to a valid letter
if answer not in set(valid):
    m = re.search(r'\b([A-D])\b', answer)
    answer = m.group(1) if m else valid[0]
FINAL(answer)

# REASONING: MCQ with no context and 10 choices - delegate to sub_llm.
import re

valid = [c for c in "ABCDEFGHIJ" if f"{c})" in task_0]

# No context to search - pure knowledge question
answer = sub_llm(task_0, "")
answer = (answer or valid[0]).strip().upper()

if answer not in set(valid):
    m = re.search(r'\b([A-J])\b', answer)
    answer = m.group(1) if m else valid[0]
FINAL(answer)

# REASONING: Generate company names and enforce the ALL CAPS constraint
# programmatically - verify before submitting.
import re

# Build creative names directly as Python strings (ALL CAPS)
names = [
    "FAREFLOW ANALYTICS",
    "FAREWISE LABS",
    "TRANSFARE INSIGHTS",
    "FAREMETRICS",
    "ROUTEFARE INTELLIGENCE",
    "FARETRACKER SOLUTIONS",
    "TRANSIT FARELOGIC",
    "FAREVISION ANALYTICS",
    "COMMUTER FARELAB",
    "FAREDATA SYSTEMS",
    "FAREMAP ANALYTICS",
]

# Verify ALL CAPS constraint before submitting
output = "\n".join(names)
assert output == output.upper(), "Not all caps!"
FINAL(output)

# REASONING: Implement straightforward simulation of the K operations
code = r'''
import sys
def main():
    data = sys.stdin.read().strip().split()
    K, G, M = map(int, data)
    glass = 0
    mug = 0
    for _ in range(K):
        if glass == G:
            glass = 0
        elif mug == 0:
            mug = M
        else:
            transfer = min(G - glass, mug)
            glass += transfer
            mug -= transfer
    print(glass, mug)
'''
FINAL(code.strip())

Full Results GPT-5-mini

Token savings factor of minRLM vs Vanilla and Official. Higher is better. Negative means minRLM uses more tokens (GDP Val, AIME).

50 runs per task per runner (1,800 evaluations total). GPT-5-nano and GPT-5.2 results below.

Model Scaling GPT-5-nano & GPT-5.2

Same 12 tasks, same prompts, different models. The advantage grows with capability - but not uniformly.

Scaling trend

The REPL isn't a crutch for weak models - it's a lever that better models pull harder.

GPT-5-nano (small model)

1,800 evaluations (50 per task × 12 tasks × 3 runners).

Vanilla wins overall, but the per-task breakdown shows where RLM helps a smaller model most:

Where RLM helps nano

Where vanilla nano wins

Takeaway: RLM helps small models on structured decomposition (BrowseComp, GDP Val, CodeQA, OOLONG). But nano can't write correct Python for code-heavy tasks, so the REPL hurts there. Still beats official scaffolding at 3.6× lower cost.

GPT-5.2 (frontier model)

1,200 evaluations (50 per task × 12 tasks × 2 runners).

Per-task breakdown:

Per-task: minRLM vs vanilla on GPT-5.2

Where vanilla GPT-5.2 wins

Takeaway: The AIME result is wild - vanilla scores 0% while minRLM scores 96%. Why? The vanilla runner is a plain API call with no chain-of-thought prompting. GPT-5.2 outputs 4 tokens (just a number) and moves on - no reasoning, just a guess. The REPL forces the model to actually compute the answer via code instead. RepoQA remains the one consistent weak spot across all models.

Limitations & When Not to Use It

• Pure reasoning with no data - model-dependent. On smaller models, the REPL adds overhead on tasks like AIME and MMLU Pro. On larger models this flips - the REPL becomes a calculator, not just a retriever. When in doubt, skip the REPL for pure-reasoning tasks on smaller models.
• Short contexts (<8K tokens) - if everything fits in the prompt, a direct call is simpler and about as good. The advantage grows with context size.
• Code retrieval (RepoQA) - the one task where vanilla wins across all model sizes. The model sometimes generates code instead of extracting it. Biggest gap to close.
• Stdlib-only sandbox - Python 3.14, no third-party packages. math, itertools, statistics, collections - but no numpy, pandas, or requests.

Discussion

Fewer tokens means lower cost, lower latency, and higher throughput. Because minRLM's token cost is roughly flat - independent of input size - a 10MB document costs about the same as a 10KB one to process.

The failures matter as much as the wins. RepoQA is the one task where vanilla wins on every model size I tested - the model sometimes generates code instead of extracting it. Pure-reasoning tasks (AIME, MMLU Pro) hurt on small models but flip on larger ones. The pattern is consistent: stronger models use the REPL to compute, not just retrieve.

Right now, most companies optimize for making AI work at all cost. Saturate the context window, throw compute at it until accuracy clears a threshold. That works for demos. It doesn't work when you're paying per token at scale and your p99 latency is blowing SLAs. I think this will shift - not because people suddenly care about efficiency, but because the economics will force it. It's already starting: Anthropic's web search tool writes code to filter results, MCP standardizes code execution access, smolagents and @realmcore_'s work go further. They all converge on the same idea: let the model use code to work with data instead of attending to all of it.

Architectures are getting more efficient too - hybrid models like NVIDIA's Nemotron mix SSM layers with attention. But even with better architectures, most input tokens are irrelevant to the query. RLMs work at a different level: reduce what any architecture has to process. Feed the model only the relevant part.

Conclusion

The results speak for themselves - check the tables above. What I find more interesting than the numbers: every intermediate step is Python code, not hidden attention patterns. When a query fails, I can read the generated code and see exactly which search missed, which filter was too strict, which assumption was wrong. That's something you can't do with a vanilla LLM call. It's not full explainability - but it's a real step toward it. RLM outputs are Software 1.0: deterministic, testable, reproducible.

Context window rot is real (Liu et al., 2024) - model accuracy degrades as input grows, even when the answer is right there. Bigger windows aren't the fix. Less input, better targeted is. This is open-source because I think it should be. I welcome everyone to contribute and adopt this where it makes sense. Our goal is to help enable efficient AI adoption at scale - memory and compute friendly, on the tasks that matter.

Future work

• More models - Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 2.5, open-weight models. I want to see if the scaling trend holds across providers, not just OpenAI.
• Agentic pipelines - using the RLM pattern as a retrieval step inside multi-step agent workflows.
• More tasks - expanding the benchmark to stress-test edge cases and domains where the approach might break.

Code & Reproduction

CLI (zero-install)

# Just a task - no context needed
uvx minrlm "What is the sum of the first 100 primes?"

# Task + file as context
uvx minrlm "How many ERROR lines in the last hour?" ./server.log

# Pipe context from stdin
cat huge_dataset.csv | uvx minrlm "Which product had the highest return rate?"

# Show generated code (-s) and token stats (-v)
uvx minrlm -sv "Return the sum of all primes up to 1,000,000."
# -> Sieve of Eratosthenes in 6,215 tokens, 1 iteration
# -> Answer: 37550402023

uvx minrlm -sv "Return all primes up to 1,000,000, reversed. Return a list of numbers."
# -> 999983, 999979, 999961, 999959, 999953, ...
# -> Tokens: 6,258 | Output: 616,964 chars (~154K tokens) | 25x savings

Python

from minrlm import RLM

client = RLM(model="gpt-5-mini")

answer = client.completion(
    task="Which product had the highest return rate in Q3?",
    context=open("q3_returns.csv").read()  # could be 50MB
)

answer = client.completion(
    task="Find all race conditions in this codebase",
    context=codebase_str
)

Visualizer

# Interactive side-by-side comparison UI (minRLM vs vanilla)
git clone https://github.com/avilum/minrlm && cd minrlm
uv sync --extra visualizer
uv run python examples/visualizer.py  # http://localhost:7860

Reproduce the benchmark

uv sync --extra eval
export OPENAI_API_KEY="sk-..."

# All 12 tasks, all 3 runners, 50 runs
uv run python eval/run.py \
  --tasks all \
  --runners minrlm-reasoning,vanilla,official \
  --runs 50 --parallel 12 --task-parallel 12 \
  --output-dir ./my_results

Client, benchmark framework, and all evaluation data: github.com/avilum/minrlm

↑ Back to top

Primary benchmark on GPT-5-mini; cross-model results on GPT-5-nano and GPT-5.2. Code samples lightly abridged; full source at github.com/avilum/minrlm.

References

1. minRLM - Lumelsky, A. (2026). minRLM: A Token-Efficient Recursive Language Model Implementation and Benchmark. github.com/avilum/minrlm
2. Zhang, A., Kraska, T., & Khattab, O. (2025). Recursive Language Models. arXiv:2512.24601
3. Zhang, A. (2025). RLM - Reference Implementation. github.com/alexzhang13/rlm
4. Hugging Face (2024). smolagents - Code-as-Action Agents. huggingface.co/blog/smolagents
5. Anthropic (2026). Improved Web Search with Dynamic Filtering. claude.com/blog/improved-web-search-with-dynamic-filtering
6. Reddit/ClaudeAI (2025). Claude Web Search Now Writes & Executes Code. reddit.com/r/ClaudeAI/comments/1r7xawn
7. Willison, S. (2025). Code Execution with MCP. simonwillison.net/2025/Nov/4/code-execution-with-mcp
8. Universal Tool Calling Protocol. github.com/universal-tool-calling-protocol
9. Luo, H. et al. (2025). Context Window Rot in Long-Context LLMs. arXiv:2509.21361
10. Liu, N. F. et al. (2024). Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts. arXiv:2404.02060
11. Reddit/LocalLLaMA (2025). Why AI Coding Agents Waste Half Their Context. reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1rr5fo5
12. de Harder, H. (2025). Going Beyond the Context Window: Recursive Language Models in Action. towardsdatascience.com
13. Prime Intellect (2025). Scaling Recursive Language Models. primeintellect.ai/blog/rlm
14. @realmcore_ (2025). Building an RLM for Coding Tasks. x.com/realmcore_
15. NVIDIA (2026). Nemotron-3-Super-120B-A12B. huggingface.co/nvidia/NVIDIA-Nemotron-3-Super-120B-A12B-NVFP4
16. Model Context Protocol. modelcontextprotocol.io
17. Yao, S. et al. (2022). ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models. arXiv:2210.03629

Datasets

17. BrowseComp-Plus. Tevatron/browsecomp-plus
18. RULER (SNIAH). tonychenxyz/ruler-full
19. RepoQA. evalplus/repoqa_release
20. LongBench V2. zai-org/LongBench-v2
21. OOLONG. oolongbench/oolong-synth
22. AIME 2025. MathArena/aime_2025
23. GDP Val. openai/gdpval
24. GPQA Diamond. Idavidrein/gpqa
25. MMLU Pro. TIGER-Lab/MMLU-Pro
26. IFEval. google/IFEval
27. LiveCodeBench. livecodebench.github.io