№ | Пользователь | Рейтинг |
---|---|---|
1 | tourist | 4009 |
2 | jiangly | 3773 |
3 | Radewoosh | 3646 |
4 | ecnerwala | 3624 |
5 | jqdai0815 | 3620 |
5 | Benq | 3620 |
7 | orzdevinwang | 3612 |
8 | Geothermal | 3569 |
8 | cnnfls_csy | 3569 |
10 | Um_nik | 3396 |
Страны | Города | Организации | Всё → |
№ | Пользователь | Вклад |
---|---|---|
1 | Um_nik | 163 |
2 | cry | 161 |
3 | maomao90 | 160 |
4 | -is-this-fft- | 159 |
5 | awoo | 158 |
6 | atcoder_official | 157 |
7 | adamant | 155 |
7 | nor | 155 |
9 | maroonrk | 152 |
10 | Dominater069 | 148 |
+205
noob on right cannot binary search |
+146
Mike be doing some Heavy Lift Decompositions |
+82
Thanks for the posting such details. You guys do so interesting things! |
+63
Ofcourse he would be, he has been hitting the Codeforces GYM |
На
MikeMirzayanov →
ICPC World Finals in Astana: I invite you to a push-up challenge!, 36 часов назад
+61
Congrats Mike for winning |
+59
Pretty sure MIT will win: TLE deserves a world champion. PKU, THU and MIPT will likely get gold medals. Oxford is also very strong. |
+51
StarSilk will win !! |
+46
|
+42
KAZAKHSTAAAAAAAAAAAN |
+36
I think you misunderstood here... There are actually 3 different results:
It can be seen on this webpage: https://openai.com/index/learning-to-reason-with-llms/#coding |
+36
How much computing power was used? |
+36
Maybe I go for overcomplicated solution but all my codes today were very long. Not counting the templates: C — 90 lines There was too much of unnecessary "reconstruct a solution". Or did I get unlucky with problems to solve? |
+33
Endagorion, tourist: are you going to be cheering for our team vs the real #ICPCAstana contestants this time? The ICPC Quest asks to tag our supporters at home, and ex-team members seem to be the best fit :) |
+33
As a judge you cannot say that. I regret to inform you, but you are arrested |
+32
I largely agree with the main point of the blog — but I'm curious, would you be fine with dropping from rank 10 on CF to let's say rank 200, knowing most of the people above you are cheating, but not necessarily knowing who exactly, and wouldn't it ruin your overall experience (e.g. when reading blogs and not being able to understand the person's real rating)? Would you be fine with never qualifying for an on-site competition because of cheaters? I am not saying either will necessarily happen, but I do think that this invention may cause some harm and demoralize people, especially for someone younger who has never been to an on-site but is good enough to qualify right now. And it looks like contests with any material prizes will indeed need to find ways to address the AI cheating concerns — no company is interested in giving money to random unqualified cheaters on the internet |
+32
Bump. |
На
Qingyu →
The 2024 ICPC World Finals Astana — Official Chinese Stream Announcement, 14 часов назад
+31
I will agree you if you buy a VPN and pay it monthly for me. |
+29
I believe 99% of the students in China have a way to bypass those restrictions by filling their parents' info/injection/whatever. Self-control is a much more important factor. |
+29
|
+27
Either MIT or Tsinghua will win! GL to everyone :3 |
+27
Such things is not about informatics that in codeforces we should talk about,and it might annoy others and make codeforces into trouble as protesting religious things.Blasphemy of religion is quite dangerous. |
+27
Very insightful. Edit: Seems like its solution is in fact correct, so 1-0 for the AI against me Original: In particular I find the results on "message" interesting — it seems like its basic idea of determining a known safe column is not really correct, but given 10 000 submissions I imagine it tried a lot of different ways to communicate a safe column and eventually one went past the grader. That gives one view of why more submissions can be more helpful. I haven't examined the sphinx code, but I imagine in principle a similar thing is possible there, too. |
+26
KAZAKHSTAAAAAAAAAAAN |
+26
In previous years, he was the MC at the closing ceremony. And guess what, he was annoying af... |
+25
|
На
MikeMirzayanov →
ICPC World Finals in Astana: I invite you to a push-up challenge!, 36 часов назад
+24
Thanks! |
+23
As a setter, if you cheat I'll be hiding under your bed |
+22
Sure! Here's a simple and delicious vanilla cupcake recipe: Ingredients: 1 ½ cups (190g) all-purpose flour 1 ½ tsp baking powder ¼ tsp salt ½ cup (115g) unsalted butter, softened 1 cup (200g) granulated sugar 2 large eggs 2 tsp vanilla extract ½ cup (120ml) whole milk Instructions: Preheat the Oven: Preheat your oven to 350°F (175°C) and line a 12-cup muffin pan with cupcake liners. Mix Dry Ingredients: In a medium bowl, whisk together the flour, baking powder, and salt. Set aside. Cream Butter and Sugar: In a large mixing bowl, beat the butter and sugar together with a hand mixer or stand mixer on medium speed until light and fluffy (about 2-3 minutes). Add Eggs and Vanilla: Beat in the eggs, one at a time, followed by the vanilla extract. Combine Dry Ingredients and Milk: Gradually add the dry ingredients to the butter mixture, alternating with the milk. Start and end with the dry ingredients, mixing just until combined. Avoid overmixing. Fill the Cupcake Liners: Evenly divide the batter among the cupcake liners, filling each about ⅔ full. Bake: Bake for 18-20 minutes, or until a toothpick inserted into the center comes out clean. Cool: Remove from the oven and let the cupcakes cool in the pan for 5 minutes, then transfer them to a wire rack to cool completely. Optional: Vanilla Buttercream Frosting ½ cup (115g) unsalted butter, softened 2 cups (240g) powdered sugar 2-3 tbsp whole milk 1 tsp vanilla extract Beat Butter: In a large bowl, beat the butter until smooth and creamy. Add Sugar: Gradually add the powdered sugar, beating until fluffy. Add Vanilla and Milk: Mix in the vanilla extract and enough milk to reach your desired consistency. Frost your cooled cupcakes and enjoy! |
+22
as a tes, give me contribution |
На
MikeMirzayanov →
ICPC World Finals in Astana: I invite you to a push-up challenge!, 29 часов назад
+21
There were multiple takes, 25 pushups each. If I recall correctly, Mike has done 8 takes and the finalist has stopped in the middle of 8th. Mike is really good, hats off to him, but the guy who lost to him in the final used a more difficult technique to execute with legs together and hands placed really narrow. Normally, if I follow such technique I have ~15-20% less repeats, so this guy was extremely good. But for such competitions Mike's technique is the best one. |
+21
Peking University takes the cup — ICPC 2024 WC! Congratulations. |
+20
We don't have any results on problem setting, and I could imagine that writing creative problems is a bit out of reach of current models. (I struggle to even get them to tell me a new joke :)) But synthetic problems have been used in the training of models e.g. AlphaGeometry |
+20
KAZAKHSTAAAAAAAAAN |
+19
guy on right needs a sword to fight |
+19
I met Mike for the first time at Technocup in 2019, and I think he looks younger in this photo than he looked back then. Pretty cool) |
+19
Mike orz |
+18
I can't speak to future plans for OpenAI. That said, speaking for myself (and not OpenAI), I think watermarking is a cool research direction but not a panacea. For many problems, all AC solutions fall into a few broad buckets, and within those buckets, it is difficult to identify AI vs. non-AI solutions if one is allowed to rewrite/obfuscate code. |
На
WeakestTopology →
Snapshot of finite calculus and using it to solve a 3000 rated problem, 22 часа назад
+18
Alright, there is more to it, if you are familiar with generating functions and polynomial Taylor shifts (see adamant's blog). Just had this idea today and it concretizes the previous intuition about differential equations. Let's take a look again at our set of equations: Note that we only defined $$$\Delta^2 W_k$$$ for integers $$$k \in [1, m - 2]$$$. Let us forget about this restriction and think of $$$\Delta^2 W_k$$$, $$$\Delta W_k$$$ and $$$W_k$$$ simply as usual polynomials in $$$k$$$ (allow their "continuation"). We know that, for a polynomial $$$P$$$, Thus where $$$I$$$ is the identity operator. Of course, we can iterate this and we get $$$\Delta^2 P = (\exp(D) - I)^2 P$$$. Multiplying by $$$\frac{D}{\exp(D) - I}$$$ twice on both sides yields Letting $$$P(x) := W_x$$$ and using the fact that we get We got ourselves a differential equation! Integrating twice gives us two constants: The initial value conditions yield $$$C_1 = \frac{nm}{6}$$$ and $$$C_2 = 0$$$. Solution: 281804074. |
+18
then we will have 4 asian teams in the top 4 |
+15
They do that once per year for ieextreme |
+15
Twice, one more for romanian TST |
+15
Pengzoo let's gooo |
+15
The greatest carrying the team moment in the history. |
+15
MIT is Coming |
+14
Forgive, I am not american; my English is not fluent. Do tell me the meaning of this word health care |
На
MikeMirzayanov →
ICPC World Finals in Astana: I invite you to a push-up challenge!, 45 часов назад
+14
as a tester,i tried my best but only did 20 push-ups :) |
На
MikeMirzayanov →
ICPC World Finals in Astana: I invite you to a push-up challenge!, 44 часа назад
+14
MikeMirzayanov how can you only hold a push up challenge? It is important to do balance and work opposing muscles, so there should also be a pull up challenge |
+14
It is not much different from cheaters who use their friends/submit from multiple accounts. New technology, but the same old problem. |
+14
Thank you so much, orz |
+14
I see but odds are higher for Swarthmore College. The only outlier in gold positions. |
+14
something happen with team University of Maryland they have good hand with CP |
+13
-is-this-fft- and me thought it's a good idea to share our exchange about the rewrite to compare our approaches to writing. I think there's some good universal ideas here that might be a good learning opportunity. Some others are just preferences, and I might be wrong about things, so follow your intuition and don't let some flaws or "flaws" in your posts dissuade you from writing. The exchange purplesyringa: I removed something people are already expected to know from the introduction, like basic definitions. Given the level of knowledge you expect from the readers, rehashing that will likely annoy them more than help them get up to speed. -is-this-fft-: Maybe. I usually wouldn't rehash definitions so much, but I feel the need to do this with flows because there are kinda multiple formalizations and people might get them mixed up? purplesyringa: I also removed references to earlier unrelated problems. They would fit great in a post introducing minimum cuts, but the gap between someone who doesn't know the applications of mincut and your target audience is quite high. Maybe write something more introductory if you have time? purplesyringa: I swapped the two problems, as the first one sounds more useful and practical, so it's more likely to catch the eye of a person who just skims through the content to see if they want to read it. -is-this-fft-: Right now you have swapped the indices, but not the order. My choice to put the shared-crossing edge problem first was deliberate: the solution to this problem is much shorter. It's a more direct application of the key point; in the second problem its somewhat distracted by other details. I see your point that it's "more practical" (competitive programmers don't care about problems that are just proofs, lol). But it's also good practice to start from the simplest problem that can be solved by your technique. purplesyringa: This is why I showed the solution of the simpler problem first. I admit I'm iffy about unaligned indices too, so I'll probably swap them back. purplesyringa: I focused on the insight in the relationship between maximum flow and minimum cut instead of mentioning it offhandedly. In your post, it's the last observation of the three, so it's likely to get less attention than the other two. purplesyringa: I made the statement of the property more accessible and intuitive instead of using set-theoretical notation. Cuts are inherently symmetric, and interpreting them as a single set instead of a disjunctive union hides that symmetry and makes the logic seem twice as complex. purplesyringa: I rewrote the proof. I don't use a proof that relies on the details of another proof that experts are likely to skip on first read, because they already know how to prove the 2nd observation. Instead, I assume the equality "mincut=maxflow" is already known and prove the result in a straightforward manner. purplesyringa: I integrated the sentence "This observation gives us a nice characterization of the set of all minimum cuts..." into the applications to immediately demonstrate its usefulness. purplesyringa: In the solution to the first problem, you show the shared property first and the two particular cuts second. However, you reference the two cuts first and apply the characteristic property second. So I swapped them. purplesyringa: I used notation like $$$\leadsto$$$ instead of words like "reachable". This helps retain the symmetry (compare to "vertex reachable from s/vertex from which t is reachable" to $$$s \leadsto v$$$/$$$u \leadsto t$$$). In addition, the arrow matches our graph intuition, so you don't even have to know the meaning of $$$\leadsto$$$ prior to reading the article. purplesyringa: I replaced proofs by contradiction. These tend to introduce unnecessary complexity. Instead of saying "If X, then Y, then Z, which contradicts the statement. If not X, ...", say "By assumption, !Z. Hence !Y, so !X. ...". Very often, proofs by contradiction arise in first drafts, but it's very useful to take a step back and rewrite the proofs to avoid contradiction before publishing the article. purplesyringa: I removed the time complexity of the solution to the first problem from the statement to demonstrate that it depends on the chosen maxflow algorithm and isn't the best possible bound. -is-this-fft-: True, time complexity is not the main point of the statement. I wanted to make it clear that I expect only one call to a maximum-flow solving black box (instead of trying to remove every edge and solving maximum flow O(m) times or similar). purplesyringa: Interesting. Personally, I think that any solution involving trying to remove every edge is already quite complicated, so few people are going to think about it before reading your better solution. But maybe that's just my CP level speaking. purplesyringa: The way you hid the final solution to this problem under a spoiler feels like cheating. It's like saying "I'm running out of time and the solution is complicated, so let's sweep it under the rug". So it must stay and be the focus. Worse, the final solution is not an extension of the worse one, but a significant modification. The way it reads is "here's what we're going to use, oh, wait, no, let's do this instead, but only if you're smart". It feels like a waste of time to both experts and beginners. I simplified the final solution, sprinkling ideas that beginners could apply to get stupid-but-good-enough solutions in other situations, and removed everything else. -is-this-fft-: I understand the point. But here was my reasoning: the final algorithm should already be clear from the earlier version and the paragraph explaining how to get rid of rollbacks. The earlier algorithm needs pseudocode because it's hard to explain the propagation otherwise. The change we made to get rid of rollbacks doesn't. The final pseudocode exists only "for completeness", but shouldn't be needed to understand the algorithm. purplesyringa: "the final algorithm should already be clear from the earlier version and the paragraph explaining how to get rid of rollbacks": Yes, it's quite clear. But I think it's important not to repeat yourself and to use either prose or pseudocode, not both. "The earlier algorithm needs pseudocode because it's hard to explain the propagation otherwise": Personally, it doesn't seem that way to me. "If u is marked and u->v, v is marked" screams "propagate it with DFS" to me, and I think focusing so much on it is unnecessary. We are people, switching focus is hard for us, and going from text to code/pseudocode and back is non-trivial. purplesyringa: While bullet-point pseudocode is quite useful, it's not code, so it can be made more readable. I used S/T labels instead of 1/0. purplesyringa: I made the derivation seem linear. Instead of saying "here's how to rewrite the statement to hopefully bring us closer to the solution", which doesn't really give a sense of progression, I derived the solution step-by-step, with each step clearly extending the information known about the min-cut. The 1st step introduces the link between the min-cut and the max-flow, the 2nd step proves it doesn't contain some edges, the 3rd step proves some vertices belong to S or T, and the 4th step finally produces the result. purplesyringa: I don't assume the readers are idiots, so to speak. Saying "We can check this with DFS", followed by "propagate with DFS", followed by "If implemented carefully, this takes linear time" brings attention to unimportant parts, so I just say "Use DFS to...", because the target audience knows how to apply it. purplesyringa: "Do A. This lets us do B" reads better than "Let's do B. For that, do A first". The former requires the person to focus on A, then B. The latter makes them focus on B, then A, then think about how A helps with B. That's one more step than necessary. Saying "To do A, do B" is permissible when B is very simple and doesn't require any thinking, but not in the case of the edge validity check, when you introduce SCCs for the first time. To fix this, I made SCC computation a separate step and immediately showed how to disable some edges with it, so that the reader no longer has to think about SCC by the time they reach the 4th step. purplesyringa: Finally, I removed the section on complementary slackness. It's interesting, but what's the target audience? Learning LP from this post alone is impossible, teaching duality to newcomers is hopeless, people who know a thing or two about LP will check Wikipedia or another source instead of using your lists/tables, and experts are probably already familiar with the result. I don't think it's totally useless, but I know I can't improve it, so I just inserted the reference to the LP proof next to my simpler proof. -is-this-fft-: It's the final section of the blog. I want to show that "this is not the end of the story, this is a specific case of a larger phenomenon". "Max flow = min cut" is a specific case of strong duality, working with residual graphs is a specific case of complementary slackness. Who is the target audience? Yes, it's people who don't know LP or know a thing or two. But also people who know LP in principle, but don't have a strong intuition on complementary slackness and need to see an example. Learning LP from this is not really intended -- the purpose of this is to show that it exists. Maybe give people inspiration to learn LP. I guess I went overboard with it and added more than necessary "for completeness". You can see how it happened: "I need to show that this fact is exactly complementary slackness" -> "Ok, then I need to agree on an LP formalization of maximum flow and minimum cut" -> "And probably show that they are duals" -> "Ok, now I need to put the proof of duality under a spoiler and probably reference the rules for dualizing an LP". You can see how it snowballs like that. purplesyringa: I admit I didn't consider this, huh. Personally, I did find some inspiration to learn some LP theory from your post. Thank you for that! I find it acceptable to add more difficult content to the very end. There's just one thing you need to track. People often check the length of the post before reading it, and the longer the post, the less likely they are to interact with it, even if the second half wasn't really expected to be read. I think a somewhat shorter description would do wonders. |
+13
Further reduced:
|
+13
We finally have another great trolling! |
+13
|
На
Qingyu →
The 2024 ICPC World Finals Astana — Official Chinese Stream Announcement, 15 часов назад
+13
I don't think we should talk about this thing on codeforces since I don't wish codeforces to be banned. |
+13
Why the University of Maryland scored so low? Anyone knows? I was rooting for them |
+12
In the blog post, we discussed this a little:
It would be super cool if one day the AI could do stress testing without human heuristics on top! |
+12
I agree with this statement. |
+12
Bro, I can't quit before I reach PUPIL :( |
+12
Why doesn't anything work for me?:c |
+12
Оу да ,Кз Раунд 998kover покажи как надо писать раунды |
+12
Creating 1 algorithm to solve all problems is the ultimate challenge. |
+12
" The rest is generic advice, but this is actual nightmare fuel. |
+11
Oh, thanks! I’m just lazy to read about it. I prefer to read on codeforces comments :) So I keep my position: I would expect that a sophisticated heuristic on top of the model with stress testing would, in most cases, be as accurate as the real verdict. That is, score should not improve by allowing more submissions. |
На
-is-this-fft- →
Is it just me or has discussion on Codeforces become a lot less lively?, 2 дня назад
+10
I did not say "speaking English," I said "knowing":
|
На
MikeMirzayanov →
ICPC World Finals in Astana: I invite you to a push-up challenge!, 47 часов назад
+10
I hope for a virtual participation. |
+10
For each task and the 10,000 submissions, if the score distrubution histogram can be shared, it will be more impressive! |
+10
You might find the second editorial of this problem helpful. |
+10
I am sorry, but what he has to do with final in Astana? |
+10
Thank you! Added link to text |
На
zhengqingyuan →
Some useful conclution for some naive algorithms to solve number theory problem, 14 часов назад
+10
Question: why "intelliger" instead of "integer"? Is it an implication that integers are intelligent and sentient beings? A slight correction on 1: the growth is in fact just $$$\mathcal{O}(\log \log n)$$$ on average. |
+10
he is a dumb g**. |
+10
Just be more Chinese. You simply are not Chinese enough. Insert some Chinese genes into your DNA. |
+9
Most sane AverageDiv2People Exceptionalism |
На
Qingyu →
The 2024 ICPC World Finals Astana — Official Chinese Stream Announcement, 16 часов назад
+9
Sorry,YouTube is banned in China(Don't ask how I know this). |
На
zhengqingyuan →
Some useful conclution for some naive algorithms to solve number theory problem, 14 часов назад
+9
gcd(x, y) = min(x, y) or gcd(x, y) <= min(x, y) / 2. so we can say there are O(lg(n)) distinct prefix gcds. |
+9
It didn't aged well |
+9
Dumbass skipped not only occurs from cheating it also might be due to resubmission. It seems he cheated in one only |
+8
You can always use a new device, such that the Safe Exam Browser effectively becomes useless.. |
+8
ZhouShang2003 chen_zexing stasio6 North America, USA, University of California San Diego |
+8
I've submitted a bug. https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116768 |
+8
okwedook Hi! The issue is now fixed. All thanks to MANAV_2005 for fixing this issue. |
+8
Does the mirror contest start at a specific hour or you can start whenever you want? |
+8
Apparently, after registering for the Mirror Contest, it says that the contest is scheduled to start in 2025 |
+8
i can confirm i am indeed a real person lol |
На
zhengqingyuan →
Some useful conclution for some naive algorithms to solve number theory problem, 12 часов назад
+8
oh wow, I totally forgot about references lol. I took a look at it, and it makes way more sense now. Thanks! |
+8
What happened to University of Maryland? |
+8
Your prediction was given when MIT was out of top 50. But in the end they got into top 12 and you was wrong, lol. |
+7
Auto comment: topic has been updated by 5k_sync_closer (previous revision, new revision, compare). |
+7
What's wrong with it? |
+7
Kevin114514 will surely win WF 2024! |
+6
Miscalculated, but where... |
+6
Solve easier problems, get stupid rewards. |
+6
The reason is you are solving problems only rated 800. |
+6
solve more >1400 problems |
+6
How was the rating of the team computed? |
+6
Actually, you're right, I seem to have misunderstood its approach. Not sure why so many people agreed with me. |
+6
Live standings with CF handles: Spoiler |
Название |
---|