Nov 112014
 

Practice Session
As usual, we conducted a practice session for contestants the day before the real contest. However, this time the practice session didn’t run smoothly. There is a problem: some submissions are judged as “No – Compile Error” while they actually can be compiled. For your information, the judges used PC2 contest management system to help the judging process. Apparently, (I suspect) the latest version of PC2 contains bugs which cause this problem. I suspect so because similar problem also occured in the recent ACM-ICPC 2014 in Kuala Lumpur. Therefore, a quick solution to this problem is by downgrading the PC2 system to the previous version (which proven to be stable for years in ACM-ICPC Jakarta).

Contest
The contest run for 5 hours (from 10am to 3pm). Fortunately, the problem in practice session didn’t happen in the real contest (which support my suspect). The contest was quite smooth. As usual, there are some “beginner” questions posted by teams, e.g. what is Time Limit Exceed, why my code got Wrong Answer, etc. Now I think we should have an F.A.Q for these questions. There is also an entertaining question such as “Kok susah ya?” The questions are mostly handled by me, Hutomo, and Felix Perdana. By the way, Hutomo was the field coordinator for judges in INC 2014 (yeah, I just come up with that title). He was in charge of managing and coordinating all the judges in the room.

Plagiarism
This issue has been raised since two years ago when we noticed some teams were cheating by submitting accepted codes from other team (same university). I don’t remember the details, but I think those teams managed to qualify to ACM-ICPC Jakarta in that year. We “forgave” those teams at that year, but in the next year, we explicitly mention the anti-plagiarism act in the rule. Thus, we have a strong basis to disqualify cheating teams. Like previous year, this year we also observed some plagiarized codes. As expected, these come from low rank teams (which do not have any honour at all). Fortunately, none is found in the TOP 50 teams (hopefully we checked them correctly). This time we only concern with the TOP 50 teams as these teams will qualify to ACM-ICPC 2014 Jakarta. Doing plagiarism check on all teams are time consuming, so we decided not to do it this year (maybe next year when we have a better tool) and focus more only on the TOP 50.

Winners
The contest is won by team BerinGAS from Univeresity of Indonesia. They managed to solve all 10 problems in 289 minutes (of 300 minutes contest time). I bet they were very satisfy with this achievement. I know that feeling when you at last managed to solve all the problems near the end of the contest time :-). The second winner is Sylph from Bina Nusantara University who solved 9 problems. Interestingly, they’re the only top team which didn’t solve problem I in the contest. The third winner is Fast Fourier Transform from University of Indonesia who solved 8 problems. The 4th, 5th, and 6th winners were also solved 8 problems but with larger penalty.

The final and complete scoreboard can be seen here.

ACM-ICPC 2014 Jakarta
… will be held on 4th and 5th December 2014 at Bina Nusantara University (there is an excursion tour on 6th). The contestants will come from: (a) TOP 50 teams from INC 2014, (b) TOP 5 teams from ACM-ICPC 2014 Provincial Sumatra (+ 3 best teams from Sumatra), (c) TOP 5 teams from CompFest 2014, and (d) (usually strong) foreign teams. Check the website for more informations. For all qualifying teams, prepare yourself and see you there!


  27 Responses to “ACM-ICPC INC 2014”

  1. “One popular approach was by first sorting all the strings and pair each succesive string whenever possible”, kode saya spt itu, hanya saja pasangkan dr yg terpanjang http://ideone.com/PGjPAq

  2. komen untuk prob J

    β€œOne popular approach was by first sorting all the strings and pair each succesive string whenever possible”, kode saya spt itu, hanya saja pasangkan dr yg terpanjang http://ideone.com/PGjPAq

    • koreksi, prob G

    • Ngga, kode kamu nggak seperti itu. Approach kamu itu jadi sama dengan approach greedy yang bener (pasangin dari leaves) — string yang paling panjang saat itu pasti leaf.

      Yang dimaksud “pair each succesive string whenever possible” itu comparenya bener-bener cuma sama 1 string di sebelahnya aja (sorted); sedangkan kamu compare dengan yang panjangnya lebih pendek.

  3. a bit curious about problem H. Did you use the real Kawal Pemilu data for judge’s test case? πŸ˜€

  4. nice problem, nice editorial, pretty helpful, thx πŸ™‚

  5. saya penasaran dgn problem yg blm sempat saya kerjakan (dan AC), apakah mungkin akan diupload ke situs online judge ?

    saya dpt ide sederhana utk problem J dgn menelusuri apakah suatu nilai bisa jadi pivot (menjadi ‘L’), setelah itu cek apakah bs dr index tersebut menjadi good segment, jika tidak cetak impossible, kode saya : [[REMOVED]]

    thx koreksinya πŸ˜€

  6. How about ACM-ICPC 2014 Jakarta write up?? Will it be published?

  7. How can I get input data ?

    Thank you for sharing.

    • Ah… I didn’t notice this comment before >.< I'll not share the input data publicly. You can test your solution in some online-judges, e.g., tokilearning or joj. (I think) I have sent the test data to the admin on those sites.

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)