Get Time
Search | Watch Thread  |  My Post History  |  My Watches  |  User Settings
View: Flat (oldest first)  | Threaded  | Tree
Previous Thread  |  Next Thread
[ 1 2 3 4 5 ]    NEXT >
Re: ICPC 2007 results??? (response to post by dgarthur) | Reply
Why this approach is incorrect?
May be anyone can show me crash test for this solution?

1. Assign X_i = mincut(i,0)
2. Using binary search find minimal x : there is no way from 1 to 0 using nodes with X_i > x.

Re: Kudos to Derek and Shahriar (response to post by andrewzta) | Reply
Oh no!, now everyone knows we didn't solve a problem at all, :).

Although as far as i remeber this is not the first time they publish the final results, in Shanghai they gave a sheet at the end of the prizing ceremony detailing the final results.
Re: Kudos to Derek and Shahriar (response to post by andrewzta) | Reply
Thank you very much for this great step on making ICPC more clear.
Re: Detailed results! (response to post by Hurd) | Reply
Wow! Yes, thank you very much.
Detailed results! (response to post by andrewzta) | Reply
Thanks to ICPC organizers for posting the detailed results. They tell a much better story.
Re: Kudos to Derek and Shahriar (response to post by Hurd) | Reply
Re: ICPC Medals (response to post by misof) | Reply
More than this, some universities have more then one strong team, and only one of them advance to the World Finals. So, all talks about percentiles, in my opinion, are unjustified.

For example, to advance to the World Finals in Tokyo we have to beat another Moscow U team, NEERC-2005 champions and Bronze medalists of San Antonio-2006. We won NEERC-2006, and they finished 3rd. Don't they also deserved to be in 1% of the best ICPC teams?
Re: ICPC Medals (response to post by marek.cygan) | Reply
Well, talking about the medals, the current system with gold/silver/bronze is quite confusing. I read now and then in news about teams "winning ICPC" when they get gold medal, and "coming first and second" when they get gold and silver.

On the other side I can agree with Bill and others that say that there must be some reward for high-ranked teams at ICPC. Should all competition go for the top three places, the current growth rate would never be achieved.

The introduction of the medals system coincided with the huge expansion of ICPC coverage throughout the world, and I think that it gave additional motivation to such expansion.

But there are some controversial things implemented together with it, such as blurring the bottom of the standings table. Here I agree with Gordon that some (small, but who judges that?) achievements might be covered.
Re: ICPC Medals (response to post by misof) | Reply
I think we should be wary of the claim that any sporting event -- of which this is one -- measures much other than who happened to win. Of course, better teams have a higher chance of winning, but that's it.

ICPC and IOI do not have in their mission statements anything about trying to rank the prowess of competitors, or even about identifying the "best." Only TopCoder claims to do that.

The idea is, I think, to encourage and reward accomplishment at all levels. So I think it is way more important to give mid-ranked teams something to strive for than to worry about who gets what trinkets.

I wrote (with Munro, Vasiga and Kemkes) a paper about this, and about some organizational changes that both IOI and ICPC might consider. Unfortunately the journal version -- -- seems no longer freely available. The conference version -- -- is essentially similar.
Re: ICPC Medals (response to post by misof) | Reply
Not quite 3 to 10 for NEERC, more of 13 to 20 :)
Re: ICPC Medals (response to post by icpc-bill) | Reply
Just one comment on the "math" part:
With the current system of advancement from regionals the claims like 'Teams receiving "With Honor" would be in the top 1% of ICPC teams.' are in my opinion quite imprecise. No offense intended, but I would look for many of the real top 1% teams at places 3 to 10 in tough regions (think NEERC and CERC).

I understand that there are other reasons for having the current advancement rules -- as I see it, popularization of computer science in the weaker regions plays an important role here. I understand some of the motivation behind the advancement rules and I don't want to argue against them here. However, once you have such rules, claims like the one I highlighted above lose any scientific validity.
Re: ICPC Medals (response to post by icpc-bill) | Reply
I am really feeling happy for Petrozavodsk State Univ.! Congratulations to them!
Re: ICPC Medals (response to post by icpc-bill) | Reply
P.S. One Gold, One Silver, One Bronze? We could do that. But if we are convinced that the arithmetic is accurate but the math is not accuate, then we would not be true to our love for understanding.

I do not understand why increasing number of teams has influence on the number of medals. I am not against giving additional certificates or "Honorable Mention".
ICPC Medals (response to post by JongMan) | Reply
Today, to win any ICPC medal you are in the 99.8 percentile of 6,099 teams representing 1,756 universities in 82 countries. Gold medals are at the 99.9 percentile level. That is an extraordinary accomplishment.

Currently we guarantee Gold to the top 4, Silver to the next four, and Bronze to the next four. Read the rules carefully and find where it says that we will not award additional Bronze medals.

The ICPC is governed by principles including putting people first and following the Golden Rule (good-will reciprocity). So, while we do all that we can to follow our rules, we will address a need after the fact if the circumstances warrant it within our ability to do so. I'm enabled to rule on such unforeseen circumstances.

In terms of medals, the most popular medal application was Gold for solving the most, Silver for solving the next most, and Bronze for solving the next most. This disregards variability, native language differences and provides clear granularity.

The problem was that the number of medals varied from a min of 1 to 1 for all. So, we took our Top Ten and assigned medals 3-3-4. As the ICPC grew from 24 teams at the World Finals to 88, and the regionals increased by a factor of 8, we felt like we were under recognizing excellence, a trait common in IT. So we expanded to 12 teams receiving medals in a 4-4-4 distribution.

Winning an ICPC medal puts you in the upper 99.8 percentile of 5,099 teams representing 1,756 universities in 82 countries competitng at 205 sites. Where as winning the World Championship in 1982 when Baylor won put you in the upper 99.25 percentile.

A number of us prefer the model of medal based on problems-solved only. So, given that 10 of the top 12 medal winners solved 6 problems and that only team 13 had solved 6 problems, the situation begged to be addressed by a microapplication of the favored method of applying medals by problem count.

I polled 40 volunteers with several hundreds of years of contest experience. The consensus was to acknowledge the accomplishment of team #13 with a bronze medal. A few preferred not to make the change. But, the chief judges supported it, the DRC supported it, several super regional directors supported it, and so forth. So, I made the award.

Personally, I believe that we will move toward giving certificates and medals while preserving the World Champion as being the 1 and only 1 of years competitors.

What I would like to do is assign teams performing at the same level of the team at the 99.8 percentile receive bronzes. Above that, teams would receive silver and gold in accordance with a natural break.

Teams in the block immediately below bronze would receive certificates "With High Honor". The next block would receive "With Honor". The remainder would receive "Honorable Mention."

We would publish the statistics as well as the standings. The statistics would show the scoring problem by problem for each team. In fact, we would provide a digital score board that could be run back and foward to see the teams performance at any point of the event.

What would be the result? Teams receiving 'Honorable Mention' would be in the top 2% of ICPC teams. Teams receiving "With Honor" would be in the top 1% of ICPC teams. Teams receiving "With High Honor" woudld be in the top 0.5% of ICPC teams. Bronze teams would be at 0.3%. Silver at 0.2% and Gold would be 0.1%. The World Champions would be #1 of all.

That is different than the Regionals because the regionals need to score to get into the World Finals. Rather it is a blend of the World Championship, the Medals of Championships, and the honors earned in academic diplomas.

-- Bill

P.S. One Gold, One Silver, One Bronze? We could do that. But if we are convinced that the arithmetic is accurate but the math is not accuate, then we would not be true to our love for understanding.
Re: Kudos to Derek and Shahriar (response to post by marek.cygan) | Reply
Yeah, I understand your point and I was just joking. :)
Actually I agree with you - because I couldn't get near any medals in my previous finals and I want mooore teams to share this sentiment. (Evil grin)

(Do not [-] me! I'm still joking.)
[ 1 2 3 4 5 ]    NEXT >