I believe the “evidence” he listed could either be obtained simply by looking at the number of solves, or was completely useless information. For example:
***had a large performance gap between contestants / some problems were hard / some were easy. (The problems were already ordered by difficulty & This is just a personal judgment and should not be taken as a reliable reference and you could also see the number of solves, so was this useful at all?)***did not solve problem***. (Was this useful in any way? Could it help anyone solve or pass a problem?)- The scoreboard was not misleading. (Was this useful? And couldn’t you tell that just by looking at the scoreboard?)
- There bugs on CF. (Was this useful?)
If you participated in the contest, I believe nothing I said would help you solve any problem. If you did not participate, then it was even more useless.
It was just an online contest. As long as you did nothing unfair, such as cheating or revealing solutions, I think reasonable discussion should be allowed(for example, saying that *** was rank 1 or that *** solved problem ***), since all of this information was public.
As for the reused problem, we indeed did not find any similar problems on CPRet or yuantiji, but during the contest, someone pointed out that 1F had previously appeared in a research paper.
We sincerely apologize for this. The duplicate happened because our plagiarism checking was not thorough enough. However, since the problem has already been used and I believe it is a high-quality and educational problem—perhaps even the only useful problem involving this particular concept—I think it would be better to enjoy the problem rather than continue complaining about it.
You can downvote this blog if you want.
By the way, Codeforces does seem to have a display bug: under certain conditions, some users may see an incorrect problem statement, which has been confirmed to be an older version. I sincerely apologize if this affected your attempt, but I do not believe this was my fault.
And can anyone recommend some good methods for checking whether a problem has appeared before?
We couldn’t find 1F using CPRet or yuantiji, because its possible sources seem to be:
- A Tsinghua University assignment from about ten years ago;
- A Codeforces blog post from at least eight years ago.
I’m not sure how we could have checked for duplicates in a situation like this. Does anyone have a good solution?









Auto comment: topic has been updated by aaa_Pigeon2 (previous revision, new revision, compare).
Auto comment: topic has been updated by aaa_Pigeon2 (previous revision, new revision, compare).
I don't think you should be blamed for 1F existing, it happens and there's not really much you can do about it besides inviting more testers (the problem statement is pretty natural so it's not super surprising that the problem already existed in my opinion, but just because a problem is natural doesn't mean it already existed). Same with the outdated statement
But in what world is saying that "the standard / model solution is very short" not a hint towards the solution? If I'm thinking that the solution to E was some long impl heavy casework problem, and I see this message, I'd be inclined to think "hmm, maybe I'm thinking about this the wrong way". Same with saying "Isn’t this problem very easy?", though maybe that's less bad.
mister, how old are you?
To me it's pretty obvious that 1F was most likely featured in some research paper, it was the first thing that I thought when reading it. I don't believe nobody thought so during testing as well.
1E have many classic solutions but none that seem small/not tricky/clearly good enough complexity from what I've thought during the contest, so "the solution is small" would be a big hint to continue thinking.
Before putting a problem in a contest, use a search engine and check if you can already find the problem on the internet. For most search engines and most keywords relating to F, the top hits are already the solution.
Trash contest, trash authors.
Okay, so I am a friend of aaa_Pigeon2 plus a tester for this round.
I guess I should point out various funny things (as a friend lol):
You guys are getting baited lol. He mentioned to us that he was deliberately farming downvotes, and you guys actually thought he was legit trying to explain.
Regarding problem F, he literally told us long before the contest, "Dang, a lot of my problems are becoming research paper problems". He just didn't think everyone read the paper lol.
I quote: "But during the contest, someone pointed out that 1F had previously appeared in a research paper." It is himself lol
hello i am a friend of aaa_Pigeon2 and from israel and i agree please forgive him of his crimes
King CarViz heard someone was trying to take his #-1 contribution spot and came back from the dead to save codeforces orz
duel CarViz(116) vs _MCYYDS_(115)
duel CarViz(116) vs _MCYYDS_(116)
Now is CarViz(-115) vs MCYYDS(-116).
Congratulations to the new emperor for ascending the throne.
carviz can now rest for the rest of his farmer life.
Two setters, one crown. Congratulations to Codeforces Round 1112 for claiming the throne of Goodbye 2023!