加载中…
个人资料
西杰阿雄与ICPCAsia
西杰阿雄与ICPCAsia
  • 博客等级:
  • 博客积分:0
  • 博客访问:294,271
  • 关注人气:143
  • 获赠金笔:0支
  • 赠出金笔:0支
  • 荣誉徽章:
相关博文
推荐博文
谁看过这篇博文
加载中…
正文 字体大小:

Reply to BJTU protest and accusation ONE more time

(2014-03-18 14:42:42)
标签:

黄金雄

cjhwang

programming-contest

it

reply-to-protest

分类: ICPC-World-Finals

        From: C J Hwang
      Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 1:38 AM
To: Marsha Poucher
Subject: Reply to BJTU protest and accusation ONE more time.

(Revised in red fonts on March 24, 2014)
Marsha:

Given Prof Hua Huang's accusations, I would like to explain the situation.
 (This e-mail will be posted in Asia Blog.)

I. Is the Asia teams  selection for the 2014 World Finals FAIR?

    Yes.  Some people are circulating inaccurate information.
    
II.  Was BJTU's protest Answered?

    Yes.

     1.  I answered the protest from Prof Qingyong Li of BJTU (Co-coach) with
         two e-mails in early January and in late December that explained the
         reasons for the Asia team selection for the 2014 WF.  
      2. I posted an explanation in the Asia blog while I made the WF teams announcement.
      3. Dr. Poucher has also communicated with Prof Li.

 


  III. What were the selection priorities for advancing teams from Asia to the 2014 WF?

     Selection priorities for WF slots are extracted from the Asia Blog:

      2013 Asia Rules (Item III.E.2) indicate that all Contest site Directors/Judges
      in Asia are required to use the University Rankings (Standard Rankings) for teams
      in their contest sites. In keeping with the  semi-autonomous spirit of The ICPC,
      the Asia Director respects RCD rankings for awards and certificates as official
      site rankings. (These RCD rankings can be seen at the ICPC web sites.)
 
      Ranking methods used by Asia RCD’s vary considerably.  So, the Asia Director
      uses the University Rankings (Standard Rankings) to determine WF Team Selection
      Priorities.  For fairness, the Asia Director excluded the Medal Award universities
      from the University Rankings once it was clear that they were qualified

      To break ties, the Asia Director used past tie breaker factors.  These include
      the "Weight of Contribution to the ICPC", the rank of teams at a second site,
      and World Finals tie breakers.
     
 IV.  What is the actual disputed point?

      BJTU wanted the ICPC to advance them to the World Finals with an extra slot.
      When this did not happen they claimed that they ranked higher than others.

        1. BJTU argued that using RCD rankings they should advance instead of one of these:
                 a. South China Agricultural University team in Changchun site.           
                 b. FuZhou University in Hangzhou and Nanjing sites.
 
        2. BJTU also indirectly argued against CUHK team in the Hangzhou site.
             
        3. Here is my explanation item by item including my reasons.   Please refer to Asia
            Rules and to item III above.
                 a.   RCD rankings can not be used for WF selection priority.  They are 
                       inconsistent.
                       BJTU claimed I must use RCD ranking. They are wrong.  University ranking
                       in the Asia Rules overrides RCD ranking.  Removing Medal award universities
                       that qualify from winning sites prevents potential manipulation of the rankings.
                 b.  CUHK vs BJTU?
                       CUHK ranked higher than BJTU.
                       BJTU claimed CUHK (standard rank 2 ;RCD rank tie 1 ) should not be 
                       counted one rank or one slot in Hangzhou site.  They are wrong.
                       In 2013 Asia rules, Hong Kong is part of the special sub-region
                       and teams in the special sub-region can participate at any contest
                       site and be counted for one local solid team and one local solid rank if
                       they are within qualified line. CUHK was not only treated as a foreign
                       preference team, the team was also a solid local team in 2013 Hangzhou site.
                 c. SCAU vs BJTU?
                     BJTU  (Hangzhou) Standard (#5); WF Selection priority (#5)
                     SCAU (Changchun) Standard (#5); WF Selection Priority (#3)
                 d. Fuzhou vs BJTU?
                     BJTU  (Hangzhou) Standard (#5); WF Selection priority (#5)
                     Fuzhou (Hangzhou) Standard (#4); WF Selection Priority (#4)
                     (Please see more reasons in item 6 below.)

        5. How were teams ranked in the Hangzhou Site?

            (Please note the RCD ranking was not good enough for WF selection priority.)
            Fudan University (Standard #1); WF selection priority (#1)
            CUHK (Please see item IV.3.b) (Standard #2); WF priority (#2)
            Jilin Univ (Standard #3); WF selection priority (#3)
            Fuzhou Univ (Standard #4); WF selection priority (#4)
            BJTU (Standard #5); WF selection priority (#5)
           
         6. Why was Fuzhou Univ ranked higher than BJTU while they tied in RCD ranking?

             My reason given to BJTU was that Fuzhou U has made a greater total contribution
             to Asia Regional contests. Neither would agree to compete to break the tie.

             If we use the World Finals Rules tie breakers, Fuzhou Univ wins.  Fuzhou solved
             its problems 10 minutes earlier than BJTU.  

             What about looking at other site rankings?
             Fuzhou Univ obtained a better ranking in a second site.
                   Fuzhou U same team (Nanjing) Standard ( #5); WF Priority (#4)
                   BJTU same tetam (Changchun) Standard (#11); WF Priority (#9)

              All of these tie-breaking criteria give the same result.      

         7. Although the Asia rules used formula of counting points, we had
            found the end result of WF teams selection was very close to the
            using of the ICPC World Finals Rules tie breakers.
        (World Finals Rules formula.)
    8. China Resolutions were applied by using WF Selection Priority
       Rankings, not by using the inconsistent (almost arbitrary) RCD
       rankings.

 V.   The recommended list of WF teams is 100% correct and consistent.

       It is unfortunate that Prof Huang Hua has turned his frustration into a circus, even
       turning to ...................................................................................  However, I have retained
       excellent intelligence and vigor to apply these rules and understand the ICPC
       Regional Rule that states that no additional slots will be allocated for ties.

VII.  Despite the .................................., I tried to get another slot to help the BJTU team,
       after BJTU teams had come close to qualifying for several years.  Unfortunately,
       there was no more space in 2014 WF to add one more team.
 
       I am very sympathetic for BJTU students.  They did a good job.
        However, the BJTU faculty conduct was .............................................


C Jinshong Hwang, Ph. D.
Professor of Computer Science, Texas State Univ
ACM-ICPC Asia Director
                IcpcAsia.blogspot.com

0

阅读 收藏 转载 喜欢 打印举报/Report
  

新浪BLOG意见反馈留言板 电话:4000520066 提示音后按1键(按当地市话标准计费) 欢迎批评指正

新浪简介 | About Sina | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站律师 | SINA English | 会员注册 | 产品答疑

新浪公司 版权所有