Report of the Judging Committee
Report of the Judging Committee on the selection of the short-listed candidates
We received altogether eighteen submissions as solutions to the Problem of the Contest. We are extremely thankful to all those participants who have invested so much of their time in trying to tackle such a challenging problem. It is very gratifying note that there are so many hard-core coding enthusiasts in various Engineering Colleges in Kerala. Selecting the best five submissions was indeed a challenging task for us.
The Committee tested the programs for the following four data files:
1. data2small.txt
2
1 1 99 99
2 2 100 104
Area of largest fitting rectangle: 9996
Lower-left corner of largest fitting rectangle: (2, 2))
Upper-right corner of largest fitting rectangle: (100, 104)
2. data2large.txt
2
1 1 101 101
1 1 10001 10001
Area of largest fitting rectangle: 100000000
Lower-left corner of largest fitting rectangle: (1, 1)
Upper-right corner of largest fitting rectangle: (10001, 10001)
3. data4.txt
4
4 4 8 10
5 2 10 7
6 1 12 6
9 5 13 9
Area of largest fitting rectangle: 36
Lower-left corner of largest fitting rectangle: (6, 1)
Upper-right corner of largest fitting rectangle: (12, 7)
4. data10.txt
10
10 164 17 196
197 182 293 225
106 117 287 135
86 74 97 80
91 48 211 200
73 130 128 224
198 61 283 128
41 89 173 222
196 22 346 194
200 84 325 108
Area of largest fitting rectangle: 37230
Lower-left corner of largest fitting rectangle: (91, 48)
Upper-right corner of largest fitting rectangle: (346, 194)
The Committee evaluated the performance of the submissions using the same compilers used by the participants as claimed in their submissions. The Committee adopted the following four-step process to evaluate the submissions:
1. Accuracy
In the first stage, the programs were tested to see whether they gave the correct solutions to all of the four data sets shown above. Those which failed to give correct solutions were eliminated.
2. Time for execution
In the second stage, the times for the execution of the programs were compared. The Committee eliminated those which were exceedingly slow.
3. Programming style
In the remaining submissions those which best satisfied the criteria of aesthetics, clarity and self-documentation were selected.
4. Priority
Since all submissions were unique and since there were no "nearly identical solutions" there was no need to apply the criterion of priority of submissions.
Recommendations
a) The judging Committee recommends that the following participants (listed in the alphabetical order of the names) be called for an oral presentation of their solutions:
b) The Judging Committee is of the unanimous opinion that all participants have made genuine and mostly successful attempts to find a solution to the Contest Problem. They deserve recognition and encouragement for their efforts. Some of them had to be left out of the short list because there is only room for five at the top! So the Judging Committee recommends that all those participants who were not included in the short-list be awarded Participation Certificates.