AI labs once treated codeforces problems as a benchmark to hill-climb. They have clearly succeeded at this goal, and achieved superhuman performance for pennies. However, we all know that there's one thing much more important than rating on CF. Conspicuously, it just so happens to be the case that AI is much worse than humans at this one thing. What is this "one thing", you ask? Farming contribution, of course.

Recent events (or should I say "Recent actions"?) unfortunately suggest that AI might be developing moderate competence in this once human-dominated field too. This blog has received 172 upvotes, something unheard of for AI-authored content.

As a foremost expert in this field, I'm introducing ContributionBench, a benchmark that aims to measure AI progress in contribution-farming.

The methodology is simple and robust:

1. A blog is eligible for the benchmark if and only if pangram detects >95% of it to be AI-generated, and it contains no embedded images/videos.
2. A blog's CCI (Contribution Capability Index) is equal to $$$\dfrac{v + c/5}{\sqrt[3]{L}}$$$, where $$$v$$$ is the number of upvotes, $$$c$$$ is the number of comments, and $$$L$$$ is the number of characters in the title + body.

Leaderboard

Last update: 29/10/2026

Human Baseline: 108.6 (DNR, Blog 133908)

🥇 69.6: Unknown (Blog 157657)

🥈 4.75: Anthropic (Claude Opus 5.5, Blog 158241)

🥉 ??

Want a blog to be added to ContributionBench's official results? Mention it in the comments below!

While the usual $$$O(n \log{n})$$$ suffix array algorithm described here suffices for almost all of one's competitive-programming needs, suffix structures turn out to be useful in several other fields which require faster algorithms. Many of the fastest algorithms that see real-world use today are derivatives of an $$$O(n)$$$ algorithm called SA-IS ("Suffix Array by Induced Sorting"). Perhaps more interestingly to users here, the fastest suffix array implementation on Library Checker as of now uses SA-IS (although adamant seems to get close using an over-engineered suffix automaton), and the AtCoder Library also happens to use it.

Unfortunately, this algorithm is really annoying to understand (it has a lot of finicky details and seemingly independent yet interdependent parts), and is definitely not like the short and elegant algorithms we're used to in competitive programming. I couldn't find any good explanations online (i.e. explanations that are both semi-rigorous and motivated), and had to resort to reading the original paper. This wasn't a particularly enjoyable experience.

I've tried to write an exposition that's hopefully better than what currently exists, and it can be found here: https://www.welcome-to-the-sunny-side.com/algo/theory/sais.html

It ended up being quite lengthy, but due to how annoying this algorithm is, I think one has to compromise on at least one of {rigour, motivation, length}.

ICPC WF 2026 has been postponed from 15-20 November 2026 to 4-9 April 2027.

The reason behind this wasn't shared, but I assume it's because of the war in the middle-east. Relatedly, IOI 2026 just concluded, and it's interesting to note that one of the two aggressors in the aforementioned war was allowed to take part under its own flag, unlike Russia and Belarus.

Announcement on X: link.

(and if you wanna see some of the usual suspects on HN doing their best to cope, here you go)

Summary:

• The conjecture in question is the cycle double cover conjecture, and resolving it has been a major open problem in graph theory for ~50 years.

• The statement of the conjecture is actually pretty simple and immediately understandable to CPers:

  For any bridge-less undirected graph $$$G(V, E)$$$, you can find a set of cycles $$$C$$$ such that each edge in $$$E$$$ is covered by exactly two cycles in $$$C$$$.

• Shockingly, the proof is also not that illegible for a mathematically illiterate person like me, and I was able to get a high-level understanding after talking to AI about it for an hour.
• Unlike previous instances of AI labs solving open math problems, this proof was produced entirely by a publicly available model (5.6 Sol Ultra, running 64 agents in parallel in codex).
• The cost for this particular attempt at proving this particular problem likely wasn't exorbitant at all (we can estimate the cost quite easily as we know that it involved 64 agents running collectively for under an hour, which translates to just a few hundred dollars based on API prices (due to an upper-bound on the output's tok/s)). This obviously excludes the cost of all the failed attempts they would have internally made at resolving other open problems with the same harness, but that's not really relevant imo.
• The proof has been formalized in Lean here.

It seems reasonable to expect most humans to be obsolete by 2028. I wonder what it feels like to be someone entering a math/cs undergraduate program right now.

I guess I'm finally employable

Just kidding, I'm one too.

Introducing GRAYtist, a browser extension that helps you filter out low-quality content from Codeforces.

You might say: "B-b-but DNR, such a tool would surely spam some API calls or use some heavyweight classifier models! My potato PC couldn't handle it, right?!".

Wrong. We instead use the principle of ratism ($$$P(\text{low rating} \iff \text{low quality}) \approx 1$$$) to optimize away all of that nonsense.

Features

1. Filter blogs by author rank and title.

• Don't want to see blogs from grays because they're annoying, and blogs from nutellas because they make you feel inferior? GRAYtist allows you to filter blogs for any combination of author ranks.
• Tired of seeing the 1e9-th blog about cheaters? GRAYtist supports filtering blogs by keywords in the title (regex and substring-matching are supported too).
• Filtered blogs are moved to a disjoint "Filtered recent actions" below the original component.

2. Filter comments by author rank

• Consider this: You're going through an editorial for a div-1+2 round and looking for thoughtful discussion on F, but 95% of the comments are grays/greens expounding on the intricacies of the 800-rated B. GRAYtist lets you filter any combination of author ranks.
• Filtered comments are automatically minimised (using Codeforces's native "hide" option) when you navigate to a blog.

3. Filter standings by participant rank

• Tired of being greeted by the sight of 100 grays (definitely not using AI) above you whenever you open the standings during a round? GRAYtist lets you filter standings by rank.
• Choose a set of filtered ranks (for instance: unrated, grey, green), and they get moved to a disjoint "Filtered standings" below the original component.

4. Whitelisting

• To avoid accidentally filtering content by users like atcoder_official, ICPCNews, etc., GRAYtist has a global whitelist. Content from any user in this whitelist will not be filtered out, no matter what.
• I've added a few users to this whitelist by default.

Installation

If you're on a chromium-based web browser, install in one click from here.

Source code can be found here.

Manual Installation Steps:

Once it's installed, set up your config from the popup.

Edit: Check out the SNR boost offered by comment filtering on this very blog using GRAYtist

Edit 2 (2026/06/23):

Some updates:

• AI solved A, B, C, D, E, F, and H in this round (reference: bugfeature). A cheater that gave the problem statements to GPT quickly would have placed at rank <= 4 in this round. I'm not sure about G, as most cheaters had already been banned by the time I checked, but looking at JohnNash01, it seems plausible that AI might have also solved it (which would imply the first(?) div-1 AK by AI, and also rank 1 for a fast enough cheater).
• Tourist has now been defeated by AI cheaters in the two most recent div-1s. GPT has turned out to be the real conqueror_of_tourist we made along the way.
• In an entirely unrelated turn of events, Panda_V is the new Indian GOAT, swatting aside Dominater069. We're being ushered into an unprecedented golden age of Indian competitive programming.

I think copes like "just get to 2100, there aren't any cheaters in div-1" are clearly invalid now. Ratings don't have much value any more, and will probably lose the little they still do in the coming months.

Edit: RainRecall has confirmed that AI did indeed solve G, making this the first div-1 AK by a publicly accessible (at least for those who can pay for it) AI model.

Edit 2: Codeforces Round 1095 (Div. 2) has also been AKed by AI (note that several LGMs and IGMs couldn't do the same). Let's see if this AK streak continues for a long time.

ICPC Asia-West Finals took place on 8 March 2026, and while official confirmation will take some time, my team will probably qualify to WF (based on the ranklist, previous year trends, and unofficial hearsay from the organizers).

After the contest, I went back to my home (instead of my uni) for a week, where I only had access to a Macbook. I couldn't play games or do any of the work I usually do on my x86 PC, so I chose to write several thousand words on my experience with ICPC, which included a summary of this contest. The stuff that precedes the summary (prior experience with ICPC, anecdotes with my teammates, etc.) is way too long and personal, so I'm omitting it over here. As such, I'll offer a brief overview of my prior experience:

• I'm a filthy tryhard that has been to ICPC regionals 7 times, and AWF thrice.
• Excluding this contest, my team has always performed really badly.
• The last two times we went to AWF, I was in a team with (redacted names) WellGroomedHair and GeometryDashAddict.
• This year, I was in a team with GeometryDashAddict and GrokSponsoredPS5.
• The AWF contest is hosted on CodeChef, and there are therefore several references to it.

The blog is REALLY long, because I was trying to preserve everything that happened in my private writing. A lot of the technical details are also overlong and not rigorous for the same reason. You can skip them. Proceed with the knowledge that you might be wasting your time.

You can read the blog here.

Note: An even longer, less polished version that includes the backstory can be found here.

Continuation of:

• Most annoying person on CF in 2018
• Most annoying person on CF in 2023

Mandatory introduction copypasta:

It is that time of the year! Many people are trying to summarize all the things that happened during the year. And since I love to hate people, I want to make a vote for the most annoying person on CF in 2025.

I know that I've been in the top contributors list for too long, so to vote for a person you should downvote the comment with this person's handle(s). Due to the nature of voting through comments on CF, you can vote for many people, and you can also upvote comments if you find given person's comments helpful/funny/positive.

If you care for your contribution but want to nominate a candidate, you can DM me their handle(s), then I will write a comment to vote. Note that I will write that it was you who nominated this person, so it saves your contribution but not relationships with the nominee. I will ignore messages from people without rating.

If you hate someone already nominated so much that you want them to know, you can also PM me so I'll add you to list of people who nominated given person.

Obviously, you can nominate someone with your own comment, but watch out for downvotes. Also, you can try to increase your contribution by nominating some very nice people unanimously loved by community. In that case I will nominate you right after that.

I know that I'm an obvious candidate, especially after writing this post. But I don't annoy me, so go on and show me your hatred :)

Hate you all, DNR.

Final Rankings

1. (-203) 123gjweq2
2. (-159) DNR
3. (-148) _kratos_
4. (-88) jiazhichen844
5. (-76) soullless
6. (-62) System
7. (-55) macaquedev
8. (-40) TimDee
9. (-35) zhoujiarun0216
10. (-34) 16777mt16
11. (-28) chenlinxuan0226
12. (-24) chromate00
13. (-23) Dominater069
14. (-20) FerjaniSassi
15. (-19) mayank69goel

(kind of meaningless since this blog got no interaction)

Frozen on: 2026/01/18

First, if you haven't read this blog, do so.

Second, if you haven't immediately updated your HLD template to support subtree queries, do so.

The problem trivially reduces to finding the number of nodes with value $$$1$$$ that have no other node with value $$$1$$$ in their subtree. Further, an update on node $$$u$$$ clearly corresponds to xoring the values for all nodes in the subtree of $$$u$$$ with $$$1$$$.

Now, let's think of a slow solution for this problem. We define the following terms:

• A node $$$u$$$ is "good" if no other node in its subtree has the value $$$a_u$$$.
• $$$f_u(x)$$$ is the number of good nodes in the subtree of $$$u$$$, with value $$$x$$$.
• $$$c_{u}(x)$$$ is the number of nodes in the subtree of $$$u$$$, with value $$$x$$$.

Then the answer is clearly $$$f_{1}(1)$$$, and all values of $$$f$$$ and $$$c$$$ can be computed in $$$O(n)$$$ in the following manner:

dfs(u):
	c[u][a[u]] = 1
	for v in adj[u]:
		dfs(v)
		for x in [0, 1]:
			f[u][x] += f[v][x]
			c[u][x] += c[v][x]
	#if u is a good node
	if c[u][a[u]] == 1:
		++ f[u][a[u]]
		
dfs(1)

How are $$$f$$$ and $$$c$$$ affected by a single update on node $$$u$$$? Let $$$g$$$ and $$$d$$$ be their new versions after the update.

1. For every node $$$v$$$ in the subtree of $$$u$$$, we notice that $$$g_{v}(x) = f_{v}(x \oplus 1)$$$ and $$$d_{v}(x) = c_{v}(x \oplus 1)$$$ (in simple terms, we swap $$$f_{v}(0)$$$ and $$$f_{v}(1)$$$, and also swap $$$c_{v}(0)$$$ and $$$c_{v}(1)$$$).
2. For every node $$$v$$$ that is an ancestor of $$$u$$$:
   1. The contribution of $$$u$$$ to $$$f_{v}(x)$$$ would have been $$$f_{u}(x)$$$ before the update, and will become $$$f_u(x \oplus 1)$$$ after the update, so we must add a delta of $$$f_u(x \oplus 1) - f_{u}(x)$$$ to $$$f_{v}(x)$$$ to account for this update.
   2. Similarly, we must add $$$c_u(x \oplus 1) - c_{u}(x)$$$ to $$$c_{v}(x)$$$ to account for this update.

Now, a less attentive reader might have overlooked a pesky little detail: It could be the case that xoring the subtree of $$$u$$$ with $$$1$$$ results in the status of some good nodes outside our subtree being toggled, and this isn't being captured by the updates described above.

For instance, in the above image (where colors indicate values), node $$$10$$$ isn't "good" before the update, but does become so afterwards.

We make the following observations:

• Only the "goodness" of ancestors of $$$u$$$ can be affected by an update at $$$u$$$.
• Define $$$p_x$$$ to be the lowest (strict) ancestor of $$$u$$$ with value $$$x$$$ (it might not exist, and we just ignore this in that case). Then only the goodness status of $$$p_0$$$ and $$$p_1$$$ can be affected by this update.
• For any $$$p_x$$$:
  • If $$$p_x$$$ was good before the update, then we can easily prove that it is not good after the update (since $$$u$$$ will have the same value as $$$p_x$$$). So we subtract $$$1$$$ from $$$f_v(x)$$$ for every ancestor $$$v$$$ of $$$p_x$$$ (including $$$p_x$$$).
  • If it wasn't good before the update, then we simply check if $$$c_{p_x}(x) = 1$$$ after performing the earlier described update for $$$c$$$ (which doesn't depend on anything else), and if so, we add $$$1$$$ to $$$f_v(x)$$$ for every ancestor $$$v$$$ of $$$p_x$$$.

Now, reducing the updates/queries that this solution requires us to perform to a more general form, we want some data structure that can do the following on a static rooted tree:

1. Update the subtree of a node (the swap updates).
2. Update the path from the root to an arbitrary node (adding arbitrary deltas for $$$f$$$ and $$$c$$$).
3. Finding the value(s) at a certain node.
4. Finding the lowest node on the path from the root to an arbitrary node that satisfies some criterion (finding $$$p_x$$$).

Luckily, HLD can do all of these things in $$$O(\log{n})$$$ / $$$O(\log^2{n})$$$ when augmented with lazy segment trees.

Lazy propagation here might be slightly non-trivial for some readers, so I'll try to explain the operations in appropriate detail below.

f[0], f[1]     #f[x] = f_{u}(x)
c[0], c[1]     #c[x] = c_{u}(x)

swap_flag
fadd[0], fadd[1]
cadd[0], cadd[1]

if t_2.swap_flag == 1:
	swap(t_1.fadd[0], t_1.fadd[1])
	swap(t_1.cadd[0], t_1.cadd[1])
	t_1.swap_flag ^= 1

for p in [0, 1]:
	t_1.fadd[p] += t_2.fadd[p]
	t_1.cadd[p] += t_2.cadd[p]

if t.swap_flag:
	swap(f[0], f[1])
	swap(c[0], c[1])

for p in [0, 1]:
	f[p] += t.fadd[p]
	c[p] += t.cadd[p]

mx_dep[0] # -> lex. maximum pair of the form {dep[u], u} where a[u] = 0, under the range of this node
mx_dep[1] # analogously defined

#toggle previously good nodes to bad
for x in [0, 1]:
	p[x] = hld.query_path(1, par[u]).mx_dep[x].second    #set null values to -1
	if p[x] != -1:
		same_cnt = hld.get_node(p[x]).c[x]
		if same_cnt == 1:    #p[x] is a good node before this update
		    hld.update_path(1, p[x], {fadd[x] = -1})
		    
#handle subtree
hld.update_subtree(u, {swap_flag = 1})
#handle ancestors
compute f and c deltas from hld.get_node(u)
hld.update_path(1, par[u], {deltas})

#toggle previously bad ancestors to good
for x in [0, 1]:
	p[x] = hld.query_path(1, par[u]).mx_dep[x].second
	if p[x] != -1:
		same_cnt = hld.get_node(p[x]).c[x]
		if same_cnt == 1:
			hld.update_path(1, p[x], {fadd[x] = 1})

In hindsight, it's a simple application of a simple technique, but cool DS problems like these definitely induce more happiness in me than most ad-hoc problems, so I hope we'll see more of them in the future, and orz to the author.

The following code takes $$$O(n \cdot x)$$$ memory (NOT $$$O(x)$$$!!!):

vector<vector<int>> a(n);
for(int i = 0; i < n; i ++)
{
    a[i].assign(x, 0);
    a[i].clear();
}

You must call a[i].shrink_to_fit() after a[i].clear() to actually free the reserved memory, and cap memory usage to $$$O(x)$$$. I unfortunately didn't know this and was consequently traumatized by seemingly inexplicable MLEs in today's d2D.

Now that I think about it, all of those tens of times where I called .clear() on smaller vectors after merging them into larger vectors (small-to-large merging) have been pointless.

Models from both OpenAI and Google ranked 27th (above the gold lowerbound) at this year's edition:

https://x.com/alexwei_/status/1946477742855532918

https://deepmind.google/discover/blog/advanced-version-of-gemini-with-deep-think-officially-achieves-gold-medal-standard-at-the-international-mathematical-olympiad/ (this model is being rolled out to gemini ultra users soon, I wonder what its cf rating would be)

I think tourist will almost certainly be defeated by AI before the end of 2026, and we shall all be dead by 2035.

In other news, chenmark was apparently offered a billion dollars by zuck to join Meta's lab lol: https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/meta-ai-recruiting-mark-zuckerberg-sam-altman-140d5861

TL-DR

https://rshf.net/ (not adapted for mobile)

https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/rshf/jmpohmlhicdbghkhageaiefhenmkdfcg

(the most recent version will be available at https://github.com/welcome-to-the-sunny-side/rshf-extension)

TS-DR

Simply put, RSHF offers the ability for users to form groups that have their own self-contained rating, report and moderation systems. Deeper visual integration with the Codeforces website is offered through a browser extension. More details on each of these components follow:

Groups

Group members are partitioned into three tiers:

1. Admins
2. Moderators
3. Members

Their roles and responsibilities closely match what you might think they do: Admins and Moderators process reports and take appropriate actions in response. Admins have additional powers (being able to modify group settings).

A group can be either public (any person who hasn't been kicked from it can freely join) or restricted (your join request must be approved by admins/mods for you to join). In addition, there are several ways to configure groups, which are described ahead.

Memberships

A user can be a member of several groups. Membership within a group serves as a weak proxy for the probability of the user participating fairly in contests. Similarly, being kicked from a group is indicative of the user likely being untrustworthy.

Rating System

Every group has a corresponding "in-group" rating for its members.

The [registration] -> [rating update] flow goes through in the following manner:

• A member $$$M$$$ of a certain group $$$G$$$ registers for the contest $$$C$$$ with respect to that group on the RSHF website ($$$M$$$ may choose to register with respect to only a subset of groups that he belongs to).
• $$$M$$$ participates in the contest on Codeforces.
• Once the contest ends, we run the following algorithm:

"""
pull in the standings S of C from codeforces

for group G:
    S' = subsequence of S containing all members of G that registered for C
    compute rating deltas using S'
    for every M in S':
        apply rating delta to M's group rating in G
"""

Some additional thoughts:

1. As this process is platform-agnostic (all that we need is a [rshf username -> cp platform username] mapping and the contest standings), we can add support for more platforms too (atcoder soon), resulting in ratings being unified across platforms.
2. You may have noticed that I didn't mention taking initial ratings into account when deciding which members are rated (this would result in an LGM having his rating updated for a div-3). We plan to allow groups to choose their own ranges for initial ratings that would be considered rated for different classes of contests (these are currently hardcoded in and are the same as cf rating ranges (div3 <1600, div2 < 2100, etc.)). Once support for atcoder is added, ABC, ARC, and AGC will also have their rated participation eligibility be configurable in this manner.
3. The actual rating algorithm used for updates is also hot-swappable (we currently use the default cf algorithm), so groups may choose to use different rating algorithms (for instance the atcoder algorithm).

Report System

Groups have their own self-contained report systems. Within a group, any member can make a report against any other member for offenses ranging from inappropriate conduct in contests to possessing a generally dislikable nature.

Admins/moderators process these reports and then take appropriate action (for example, kicking the person being reported or kicking the reporter for spamming low-quality reports). All reports (and their reviewal outcomes) are publicly visible to keep things transparent.

Further, all the reports that a user has been involved with (as the reporter, respondent, or reviewer) are visible on his profile.

Now, a question that arises is — "Why would an actual cheater even register and join a group, when he could simply not register on RSHF and maintain plausible deniability?". To account for this, we have the following solution:

1. There is a primary group, "main", which is intended to be used by all users. Everyone is added to it when they do register.
2. After pulling the standings from a completed codeforces contest, we register unregistered users to RSHF as "ghost accounts", and automatically add them to main (if you haven't registered on rshf and your account is registered as a ghost account, manually registering will result in it becoming a regular account).
3. Reports can be made against ghost accounts, and action can be taken upon these reports. Therefore, a cheater can get kicked, with the report data being stored on RSHF, without him ever even visiting the website.

A visual demonstration for the less textually inclined:

Browser Extension

The browser extension allows for deeper visual integration with the Codeforces website, along with some ad-hoc bells and whistles. Note that you don't need an account on RSHF to use the extension.

Rating/Username color injection

I find cf ratings and subsequently username colors really helpful for mentally filtering out content in cf blogs/comments that is likely low-quality, and I suspect many other people do too. This feature is the primary reason for the existence of this extension and aims to allow you to be able to similarly mentally filter content using RSHF ratings.

You choose a "display group", and all users on Codeforces then get partitioned into three groups with respect to the chosen group —

1. Group members.
2. Non-members.
3. Non-members who were kicked from the group.

You may choose to render the usernames of each class of users from a variety of display styles (rshf group ratings, regular codeforces ratings, luogu-esque brown for cheaters, etc.).

This allows you to benefit from a group's report data even if you don't want to bother engaging with RSHF — You simply:

• Install the extension
• Choose a group
• Set rendering style to brown for kicked users and default to regular cf ratings for the other two categories.

This results in the usernames of cheaters being visually distinguished while other elements remain unchanged.

Blog/Comment Filtering

You can set rating lowerbounds (either RSHF or CF) and the extension will then filter away content by users below that rating threshold. You don't have to worry about accidentally missing important blogs by troll setters like tibinyte, as no content is deleted (filtered comments just get minimized, and filtered blogs are moved to a separate box).

Some QoL Stuff

Not worth making the blog longer than it has to be.

The current situation

Things are far from complete right now, and we expect there to be some undiscovered bugs. Further — some functionality, while being implemented on the backend, hasn't been exposed to the end user yet. For instance, we currently don't offer the ability to create groups to arbitrary users, and instead have one group — "main". The rationale behind this is partly to be able to accrue enough users in one group for it to reach critical mass (dilemma: people would only really want to join a group if its ratings actually mean anything, and conversely, a group's ratings would only mean anything if enough people joined it).

We intend to run RSHF in beta for a month or so, to iron out unexpected bugs and make everything resistant to malicious use. I'm not going to have much time to spend upon it after a few weeks, so I would also appreciate people contributing/taking over development.

Apply to be an admin/mod on main here.

If you would like to contribute to/take over development, DM me.

Finally, I would like to orz uniqueUser5678 for bearing with the often infuriating commands of its inept slavemasters, DNR and Chimpanzee.

https://codeforces.me/contest/2103/status/F

I think I'm going to make a browser extension that displays a frozen (from just before the release of o1) rating/rank/color for every user (this would extend to their profiles, the color of their names in ranklists/comments/blogs/mentions, etc).

There seems to be a general trend of problem-setters going out of their way to ensure that their problems aren't solvable by AI. This obviously restricts the meta to the kinds of problems that AI is bad at: which, in practice seem to primarily be ad-hoc problems that require multiple observations. This approach doesn't always (and in my opinion, rarely) yield the most enjoyable/natural problems to humans.

The only motivation for this tendency is to ensure that CF ratings and leaderboards in contests retain some meaning.

What I want to express from this blog:

I think we should stop intentionally making anti-GPT problems and optimize problem-setting for human enjoyment, with a complete disregard for how AI models (and people using said models to cheat) perform on these problems.

I will try to explain why I think so below.

There are only two ways (distinct in their relevance to CP) in which AI gets better in the future:

1. It becomes smarter than humans and creating problems which are unnaturally hard (with respect to other kinds of problems) for it becomes infeasible because it doesn't have any weaknesses which humans are good at. This seems like a very probable outcome based on how quickly it has improved in the last few years (I can recall discussions in which people made fun of GPT's incompetence and how it would never be able to solve even slightly non-trivial problems due to fundamental issues in how AI models work, back in 2022). However, I don't have any real knowledge about how AI works or what the current AI "scene" looks like so let's not focus too much on whether this is bound to happen.
   
   Let's say it does happen in 5 years, what happens to CP then? Assuming that sites like CF don't go down to due to a lack of revenue (I don't actually know how CF generates revenue), we would realize that since there is no way to prevent misuse of AI, we might as well maximise enjoyment for actual humans (enjoyment for humans + cheating > no enjoyment for humans + cheating).
   
   Now, you may ask: how is the future relevant to the present moment? Well, I think it's because most people are subconsciously thinking of the current decision to make anti-AI problems as going down a path which leads to AI never making cf ratings meaningless, at the cost of some eternal but minor decrease in problem quality (akin to making greedily optimal choices in an optimization problem; they aren't seeing far enough). If one does recognize that ratings will become meaningless in a significantly short amount of time (5 years being a good estimate) then one views the two choices in a different light:
   • Keep making anti-GPT problems, which become increasingly hard to create, and less pleasant for humans to solve, as AI keeps getting smarter, cheaper and faster. This also entails dealing with the countless blogs and comments by crying cyans about how a guy using o69 caused his rating delta to go from +2 to -10. Do this for 5 years until there is a pivotal moment when people realize the futility of this charade. If you were to look back upon the last few years from that point, giving up the prestige and meaning we attach to ratings in exchange for preserving the actual enjoyment we derive from this activity would seem like the right thing to have been done.
   • Stop caring about misuse of AI and how it affects ratings. Optimize for elegance and enjoyment when creating problems.
   
   In other words, the destination is the same- we can either choose to be slowly dragged to it while throwing a hissy fit or accept reality and walk to it ourselves, enjoying every part of the journey.
2. Somehow, magically, AI hits a "wall" which it cannot meaningfully improve beyond. For us, this would mean that its expected performance rating would asymptote to some value. Keep in mind that this value would still be quite high, since it currently seems to be able to perform at a performance rating of at least 2000 in most contests, which places it at the 95th percentile(https://codeforces.me/blog/entry/126802) of human competitors. Once again, I don't want to speculate about how much this score would be in the future, but it seems safe to say that it would at least be 2300, implying that the vast majority of human competitors would benefit in some measure by using AI during contests.
   
   Until the "wall" is hit, the intervening period would be more-or-less identical to the period where AI gets better in the first situation. The meta would have to rapidly change, problem-setters would have to put effort into making sure that their problems weren't solvable by the SOTA, there would be a lot of volatility, people would constantly complain about AI cheaters and their effects on rating distributions, etc. This period would be as unpleasant as in the first scenario. There are two possible final destinations here:
   • We stop caring about misuse of AI and how it affects ratings. Optimize for elegance and enjoyment when creating problems. The same endpoint as the first scenario. We would realize that we should have stopped caring about AI cheating earlier in this timeline too.
   • The CF meta also asymptotes to a certain place, and is significantly based around the limitations of the then-SOTA AI. It is obviously unlikely that the kinds of problems AI would be bad at would be the ones that humans enjoy and find natural. It would, also not be perfect wrt cheating and there would still be a lot of it since AI would still be smarter than most humans at all kinds of problems (but worse at certain kinds of problems than a small percentage of humans). Maybe there will be a weird gap between the kinds of problems at offline events like olympiads and online contests, since the former would likely always optimize for human enjoyment (or at least not consider AI capability when creating problems). It could just be me, but I certainly wouldn't want this wonderful activity to end up in such a place and would much prefer having gone the other way earlier.

I shouldn't have started writing this at 6 AM, now the sun is out and I don't feel like sleeping.

title

looking for either one person or a small group (at a similar skill level, 2200-2300)

would just like to discuss after contests/share random problems/take VCs together for the next few months

also, im not an OIer but don’t mind grinding OI problems

edit: ok found some people, thanks everyone!

I am desensitised to books and video games and need some copium

I am unfortunately not very good at writing code and can barely function without an easy way to debug said code. I therefore need a debug template at ICPC and spent some time reducing the length of the debug template I use normally. I think it's pretty short already, but it seems like it can be shortened further. I don't know how to do so, hence this blog.

Some considerations:

1. Can only use features introduced in C++ 17 or earlier, as my region is weird.
2. Need to be able to debug all STL containers, and any nested versions thereof.

Now, if C++ 20 were allowed, one could simply use the following:

template<typename T> 
void __print(const T& x) {
    if constexpr (is_arithmetic_v<T> or is_same_v<T, string>) cerr << x;
    else {
        cerr << '{';
        if constexpr (requires {x.first;})
            __print(x.first), cerr << ", ", __print(x.first);
        else {
            int f = 0; for(auto i : x) cerr << (f ++ ? ", " : ""), __print(i);}
        cerr << '}';
    }
}
template <typename... A>
void _print(const A&... a) {((__print(a), cerr << ", "), ...);}
#define debug(...) cerr << "[" << #__VA_ARGS__ << "] = ["; _print(__VA_ARGS__); cerr << "]\n";

__print() works by repeatedly considering the elements that constitute x and calling __print() on them (whilst ensuring that the output of each __print() call is separated by ,) until << is defined for x by default.

Now, what's the problem with making this code compatible with C++17?

The problem is that there doesn't seem to be a short (in terms of code length) way in C++17 to differentiate between pairs and iterable containers.

I found two solutions, both of which aren't good at all:

1) Use is_literal_type_v to check if T is a pair

template<typename T> 
void __print(const T& x) {
    if constexpr (is_arithmetic_v<T> or is_same_v<T, string>) cerr << x;
    else {
        cerr << '{';
        if constexpr (is_literal_type_v<T>)
            __print(x.first), cerr << ", ", __print(x.second);
        else {
            int f = 0; for(auto i : x) cerr << (f ++ ? ", " : ""), __print(i);}
        cerr << '}';
    }
}
template <typename... A>
void _print(const A&... a) {((__print(a), cerr << ", "), ...);}
#define debug(...) cerr << "[" << #__VA_ARGS__ << "] = ["; _print(__VA_ARGS__); cerr << "]\n";

This will work if we have pairs like std::pair<int, float> but not with something like std::pair<int, vector<int>>. This is a significant loss of functionality since we now cannot debug things like map<int, vector<int>> which are often used.

2) Just create a separate templated function for pairs

struct {
    template<typename T> 
    void __print(const T& x) {
        if constexpr (is_arithmetic_v<T> or is_same_v<T, string>)   cerr << x;
        else {
            cerr << '{';
            int f = 0; for(auto i : x) cerr << (f ++ ? ", " : ""), __print(i);
            cerr << '}';
        }
    }
    template<typename X, typename Y>
    void __print(const pair<X, Y>& x){
        cerr << '{', __print(x.first), cerr << ", ", __print(x.second), cerr << '}';
    }
    template <typename... A>
    void _print(const A&... a) {((__print(a), cerr << ", "), ...);}
}_d;
#define debug(...) cerr << "[" << #__VA_ARGS__ << "] = ["; _d._print(__VA_ARGS__); cerr << "]\n";

This is also bad because:

1. Much longer code.
2. Notice that we now need to use a class/struct/namespace for the two __print() functions as they can call each other.

Can someone help me fix these issues and/or make the code shorter in general? Right now, I think the last one is the best. I can't believe I spent the last 3 hours shortening a piece of code by 5 lines.

For whatever reason, GPT and Claude seems to be unhelpful here. I ran out of access to 4o trying to get it to help me, despite purchasing GPT plus T_T

https://codeforces.me/contest/2026/submission/288600046
https://codeforces.me/contest/2026/submission/288593410
https://codeforces.me/contest/2026/submission/288601081

It's so over for contest enjoyers.

Disclaimer: It might have bugs, don't send me death threats if you FST.

I couldn't find a nice dynamic bitset template so I wrote one.

It can be found here.

It has additional functionality as compared to std::bitset (you can answer many kinds of range queries on it, for example: "Find $$$k$$$-th set bit in range $$$[l, r]$$$).

Efficiency:

Firstly, always use the following pragmas with it:

#pragma GCC optimize("O3,unroll-loops")
#pragma GCC target("avx2,bmi,bmi2,lzcnt,popcnt")

They can reduce runtime by upto 50% (thanks to mr rewhile for enlightening me on this).

I am too lazy to run any proper benchmarks, but I solved a few problems with it and it was always faster than std::bitset and tr2::dynamic_bitset. Here are some sets of submissions on the same problem with all 3:

1. Using &=, | and >>

1. My bitset: 284156267
2. std::bitset: 284156622
3. tr2::dynamic_bitset: 284156883

2. Using &=, >>=

edit: Redid these because apparently the server was under high load at the time of the initial submissions.

1. My bitset: 284262107
2. std::bitset: 284277251
3. tr2::dynamic_bitset: 284267738

So it seems that my bitset is as good or slightly better in every manner. I have no idea why this is the case though, as there is nothing which seems particularly faster in my implementation.

Parting notes:

1. If you use it and find some bugs, let me know.
2. If you think it's missing some significant functionality, let me know.

Thanks for reading my blog.

Edit (05/05/2025): Better version here.

Notice the decline by 3 million last year? OpenAI kidnapped 3 million chinese kids and they are serving as the backend for GPT-o1 from a basement.

#FreeChineseKids

Outline

• Problem
• Algorithm
• Complexity Analysis
• Code
• Example Problems

Hello, in this blog I'll share a funny way to construct a suffix tree in $$$O(n \log^2{n})$$$ time, for a given string $$$S$$$ of length $$$n$$$. I am going to call the underlying idea the "Leader Split Trick". It can probably be used to solve other problems too.

Problem

A suffix tree of a string $$$S$$$ is a radix tree constructed from all the suffixes of $$$S$$$. It's easy to see that it has $$$O(n)$$$ nodes. It can be constructed in $$$O(n)$$$ using this.

I am going to share a simple and practically useless way of building it in a worse time complexity, $$$O(n\log^2{n})$$$.

Algorithm

Initially, we start with an empty tree (with a virtual root node), and a set $$$G$$$ of all suffixes from $$$1$$$ to $$$n$$$, these suffixes will be stored in the form of their starting index.

It's easy to see that the paths from the root node to $$$l_u \forall (u \in G)$$$ will share some common prefix till an internal node $$$s_G$$$, after which these paths will split apart along some downward edges of the internal node. Let's define $$$d_G$$$ to be the longest common prefix across the paths $$$(\text{root}, l_u) \forall u \in G$$$.

Our algorithm will essentially do the following:

1. Find $$$d_G$$$.

2. Split apart $$$G$$$ into disjoint subsets $$$G'$$$ (each subset $$$G'$$$ will have suffixes whose leaves lie in the subtree of a unique child node of $$$s_G$$$).

3. Solve the problem recursively for each subset, and add an edge in the suffix tree from $$$s_G$$$ to $$$s_{G'}$$$ for every $$$G'$$$.

Now, we define a recursive function $$$f(G, L, \text{dep}, \text{dis})$$$.

In each call, $$$f(G, L, \text{dep}, \text{dis})$$$, we do the following:

1. If the "Leader" element $$$L$$$ is undefined:

2. Set $$$L$$$ to a random element of $$$G$$$.

3. For every suffix $$$i \in G$$$, find $$$\text{dis[i]}$$$, the longest common prefix of the suffixes $$$i$$$ and $$$L$$$. This can be done in $$$O(\vert G \vert \cdot \log{n})$$$ using binary search + hashing. We store $$$\text{dis}$$$ in a sorted manner.

4. Let $$$m$$$ be the minimum value in $$$\text{dis[]}$$$. It's easy to see that the internal node created from splitting $$$G$$$ will occur at depth $$$\text{dep} + m$$$. We create $$$s_G$$$, and add an edge corresponding to the substring $$$S[L + dep + 1, L + \text{dep} + m]$$$ from $$$s_{G_p}$$$ to $$$s_G$$$.

5. Now, we delete all suffixes $$$i \in G : \text{dis[i]} = m$$$, from $$$G$$$ (and their corresponding elements from $$$\text{dis}$$$), and group them into disjoint subsets based on the character $$$S_{i + \text{dep} + m + 1}$$$ for suffix $$$i$$$ (basically the next character after the internal node).

6. We call $$$f(G', \text{null}, \text{dep} + m, \text{null})$$$ for every newly created subset $$$G'$$$, and also call $$$f(G, L, \text{dep + m}, \text{dis})$$$ for the modified subset $$$G$$$.

Note: There might be some off-by-one errors.

Complexity Analysis

Consider the following problem:

We have $$$n$$$ singleton sets, and are given some set merge operations. When merging sets $$$A$$$ and $$$B$$$, we merge $$$B$$$ to $$$A$$$ with probability $$$\frac{\vert A \vert}{\vert A \vert + \vert B \vert}$$$ and $$$A$$$ to $$$B$$$ with the probability $$$\frac{\vert B \vert}{\vert A \vert + \vert B \vert}$$$.

The above problem is computationally equivalent to Randomized Quicksort, which has an expected time complexity of $$$O(n \log{n})$$$.

It's not difficult to see that our split operations are simply the operations that will occur in the above problem in a reversed manner (Formally, we can define a bijective relationship between the two sets of operations, such that related sets of operations will occur with the same probability) . Therefore, the time taken by all the split operations is $$$O(n \log{n})$$$.

However, every time we perform a split operation (merge in reverse), we also compute $$$\text{dis}$$$ for the child set $$$C$$$ (which gets merged into the parent set), and that takes $$$O(\vert C \vert \log{n})$$$ time. Thus, our entire algorithm has an expected time complexity of $$$O(n \log^2{n})$$$.

Code

My implementation can be found here.

Some thoughts

This trick seems to have some "online capability", as we can efficiently split a group of nodes into multiple groups (given that the information for query for a group can be processed mostly through a randomly chosen leader element). For example, consider the following problem:

Problem 1

You are given a tree on $$$n$$$ nodes. You also have a set containing all nodes, $$${1, 2, \dots , n}$$$. You have to process the following queries online:

1. "$$$1\; m\; x\; v_1\; v_2\; \dots \; v_x$$$" : Remove the nodes $$$v_1, v_2 \dots, v_x$$$ from the set $$$S$$$ whose maximum element is $$$m$$$, and create a new set with these elements (it is guaranteed that there exists some set with maximum element $$$m$$$ and $$$v_i \in S \; \forall \; i$$$).
2. "$$$2 \; m$$$" : Let the set whose maximum element is $$$m$$$ be $$$S$$$. Find some node $$$x \in S \mid \max_{y \in S}{\text{dis}(x, y)} = \max_{u, v \in S}{\text{dis}(u,v)} $$$.