Spring 2010 MATLAB Contest, April 28 - May 5
in [Matlab]
|
Prev: Single number into vector elements
Next: neural network
From: Alan Chalker on 4 May 2010 12:31 I just noticed something interesting as part of my various tests: it doesn't appear that the code is being run twice during the testing. In the past each entry was always run twice to help with timing variations. However, if you look at my 'time test' series of entries you'll see this: #1: Scored at: 2010-05-04 15:09:25 UTC , CPU Time: 174.418 #2: Scored at: 2010-05-04 15:12:33 UTC , CPU Time: 169.166 #3: Scored at: 2010-05-04 15:15:55 UTC , CPU Time: 173.046 #4, 5,6 etc etc etc. The scored at time of these should be 6 mins apart not 3 mins apart if the code was being run twice. Was this an intentional change or an oversight in the new contest machinery?
From: Matthew Simoneau on 4 May 2010 13:55 For the last few years, we haven't been running the entry through the entire test suite twice. We run it through a portion of the test suite to warm up the MATLAB, but only go through the whole thing once.
From: Nicholas Howe on 4 May 2010 14:25 I'd like to encourage more competitors to add a photo to their profile. For those who have won in a past contest there are already photos in the hall of fame, but it would be nice to be able to put a face to all the new names that keep showing up.
From: Helen Chen on 4 May 2010 15:16 "Nicholas Howe" <NikHow(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message <hrpoqi$1f1$1(a)fred.mathworks.com>... > I'd like to encourage more competitors to add a photo to their profile. For those who have won in a past contest there are already photos in the hall of fame, but it would be nice to be able to put a face to all the new names that keep showing up. That is such a really great suggestion, Nick! I second that request. :-) Helen Helen
From: the cyclist on 4 May 2010 15:25
"Alan Chalker" <alancNOSPAM(a)osc.edu> wrote in message <hrpg18$ffj$1(a)fred.mathworks.com>... > "Sergey Y." <ivssnn(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message <hrpelk$f8o$1(a)fred.mathworks.com>... > > Yes, submission limit helps partially with queue lag. I am not saying I do not like it. My main problem is with automatic tweaking machines. If one wants to do tweaking then one has to do it manually. > > Sergey > > > > I'd like to point out that the contest has 3 distinct phases for a reason. Darkness and twilight mostly prevent tweaking and are almost always won by those contestants with an expert level understanding of the underlying algorithms. Many of those contestants deliberately don't participate during the daylight phase because of the nature of the contest completely shifts to tweaking and optimizing. > > With the 10 entries / 10 mins limit now, there is no speed advantage of manual tweaking over auto tweaking - it's just a time commitment issue. If we are going to suggest arbitrary rules, I have a major issue with non-descriptive variable names and poorly documented code and think all leading entries need to be screened for that. But most competitors don't want to do that because again it's a time commitment issue. > > One of the things I personally enjoy about the contest is developing code the deals with the contest mechanics (i.e. the auto submission code). I found it particularly challenging to create new code to handle the new site. In fact I spent most of the weekend doing that (which is unfortunately why I didn't get a chance to submit a documented leading solver like I usually do). Out of curiosity, Alan, will you just run your auto-generator continuously until the end of the contest? If so, it looks like we can safely assume that the queue will continue to grow until the end, since you can feed the queue at one entry per minute, and each entry requires more than that in processing time. (Note that this is not a complaint, just an observation.) Also, out of curiosity (and only if you don't mind sharing, of course!): Does your code automatically grab the leader, and tweak any and all numerical parameters? Or do manually seek out more likely parameter for tweaking? the cyclist |