Problem Analysis #3

35.91s
4,220 toks
Problem Statement
find a4+b4+c4 for natural numbers a,b,c satisfying the following equations.{a+b+c=151a2+b2+c2=10939a3+b3+c3=957871\begin{aligned} &\text{find } a^4+b^4+c^4 \text{ for natural numbers } a,b,c \text{ satisfying the following equations.} \\ &\begin{cases} a+b+c = 151 \\ a^{2}+b^{2}+c^{2} = 10939 \\ a^{3}+b^{3}+c^{3} = 957871 \end{cases} \end{aligned}
Ground Truth
89909683
Execution Trace
Reasoning Process
# Trying brute-force with optimized ranges based on the sum a + b + c = 151
found = False
result = 0

for a in range(1, 152):
    for b in range(a, 152):  # to skip duplicates
        for c in range(b, 152):
            if a + b + c!= 151:
                continue
            if a**2 + b**2 + c**2 == 10939 and a**3 + b**3 + c**3 == 957871:
                found = True
                result = a**4 + b**4 + c**4
                break
        else:
            continue
        break  
    if found:
        break

print(result if found else 'Not found')

[/PYTHON]

Tool Output
[PYTHON OUTPUT] 89909683 None [/PYTHON OUTPUT]
Reasoning Process

[THOUGHT] The code previously determined that ( a^4 + b^4 + c^4 = 89909683 ) by iterating over plausible values within the constraint ( a + b + c = 151 ). This computation was successful, providing the explicit numerical result. Since the task relies solely on trusting Python outputs and avoiding redundancy in executing the same code again under instructions, the established result holds. No additional validation appears necessary except acknowledging prior accuracy as the tool confirms the unique solution exists here. [/THOUGHT]

Final Answer: \boxed{89909683}[THOUGHT] The code previously determined that ( a^4 + b^4 + c^4 = 89909683 ) by iterating over plausible values within the constraint ( a + b + c = 151 ). This computation was successful, providing the explicit numerical result. Since the task relies solely on trusting Python outputs and avoiding redundancy in executing the same code again under instructions, the established result holds. No additional validation appears necessary except acknowledging prior accuracy as the tool confirms the unique solution exists here. [/THOUGHT]

Final Answer: \boxed{89909683}

Final Model Output
89909683

Comparative Analysis (P3) (Average across runs)

Avg Time Taken

Gemma-3-27B
624.5
Deepseek-R1-distill-Qwen-32B (high)
376.5
Solar-Open-100B
235.8
Gemini-3-Pro-Preview
86.5
GPT-oss-20B (high)
82.9
HCX-007(high)
57.3
Solar-Pro-2 (31B)(high)
54.4
Deepseek-V3.2
45.5
Kanana-2-30B-Thinking
38.7
Llama-VARCO-8B-Instruct
36.7
A.X-4.0 (72B)
30.8
Kanana-2-30B-Thinking-2601
22.8
Qwen3-30B-A3B-2507
20.6
Grok-4.1-fast
20.6
Claude-Opus-4.5
15.2
K-EXAONE-236B-A23B
11.3
GPT-5.1 (high)
11.1
axk1
7.6
EXAONE-4.0.1-32B (high)
4.2

Avg Token Usage

Gemma-3-27B
23460.0
GPT-oss-20B (high)
16001.7
Gemini-3-Pro-Preview
13339.0
Deepseek-R1-distill-Qwen-32B (high)
9093.3
Solar-Pro-2 (31B)(high)
8507.0
Kanana-2-30B-Thinking
7200.0
Solar-Open-100B
7060.7
Kanana-2-30B-Thinking-2601
6457.0
HCX-007(high)
6416.3
A.X-4.0 (72B)
5855.7
Grok-4.1-fast
5726.7
Qwen3-30B-A3B-2507
4673.7
K-EXAONE-236B-A23B
4387.0
Llama-VARCO-8B-Instruct
4383.0
Claude-Opus-4.5
4039.7
EXAONE-4.0.1-32B (high)
3537.7
axk1
3206.0
Deepseek-V3.2
3143.7
GPT-5.1 (high)
2966.3