| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benq | 3676 |
| 2 | Kevin114514 | 3659 |
| 3 | jiangly | 3640 |
| 4 | turmax | 3450 |
| 5 | tourist | 3382 |
| 6 | strapple | 3360 |
| 7 | Um_nik | 3354 |
| 8 | squareOf105 | 3348 |
| 9 | maroonrk | 3312 |
| 10 | idontwannadothis…e | 3191 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 155 |
| 2 | nik_exists | 151 |
| 3 | maspy | 149 |
| 4 | AmShZ | 145 |
| 5 | Um_nik | 143 |
| 6 | Errichto | 139 |
| 7 | BledDest | 136 |
| 8 | adamant | 134 |
| 9 | maroonrk | 132 |
| 10 | cry | 130 |
| Name |
|---|



It's probably not that there are weak testcases but that it's a badly set problem. You've got 3s TL with $$$10^5$$$ constraints that can be answered in very lightweight $$$O(N)$$$ — that's just asking for trouble. It's a common difficulty as a problemsetter to cleanly differentiate a heavy solution that has a better asymptotic complexity versus a very light solution with worse asymptotic complexity, while also keeping the time limit within reason — and it just seems the authors failed to do that here.
So yeah, the optimizations do help a lot, but if the problem was set with more care, it still wouldn't pass. The author in the editorial apologizes for not testing with pragmas, and it's a very old contest so fair enough — it's a more common trick nowadays (which I think shouldn't be allowed, but I digress)
Thanks for clarifying!