Loading
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more

crowdAI is shutting down - please read our blog post for more information

Train Schedule Optimisation Challenge

Optimizing train schedules


Completed
209
Submissions
444
Participants
29671
Views

A note on Solution Validation Results: Don't hesitate to ping us if you need help interpreting the validation feedback!

Posted by jordiju over 1 year ago

Hi all

We’re seeing some activity in our grader that people use the REST-API to validate individual solutions. That’s great!

Remember: Just shoot us a message if you find it hard to interpret what exactly is wrong with your solution. We’ll be happy to assist. It is also possible that some German text is not caught in our very basic translation script and is then displayed at your end. In this case, please also notify us so we can extend the translation.

Thanks and keep up the great work!

Posted by LeoB  over 1 year ago |  Quote

Will I only get feedback when using the REST-API? I submitted a failing solution over to GUI and got zero feedback (except that it is an “Error”).

Posted by jordiju  over 1 year ago |  Quote

Hi @LeoB Thanks for the submission and sorry for the not-so-helpful error message. In your case, the problem is that you submitted the solution for the 01dummy instance directly. However, the grader expects a _list containing the individual solutions. Just wrap the JSON of your solution into square brackets […] and it should validate. You should then get at least the numeric score for the submission.

We are working on an improved grader that will provide better feedback, in particual in case of errors. It should be deployed early next week. We are also looking for ways to include the detailed validation feedback, so you can access it via the Submissions page.

We will post updates when these improvements are deployed. In the meantime, yes, we advise to use the REST-API to get detailed feedback on business-rule-compliance of an individual solution.

1

Posted by KilyenOrs  about 1 year ago |  Quote

Hi all, I’ve got the following error message: “cannot invoke method: getLast” It is strange because the Json format should be ok. (I tested with solutions for other problems). I’ve got this error for problem 6. Any ideas? Thanks in advence.

Posted by KilyenOrs  about 1 year ago |  Quote

Ok, I figured it out. My “train_run_sections” were empty (probably some nasty bug).

Posted by jordiju  about 1 year ago |  Quote

@KilyenOrs : Thanks for the clarification. Hope you run into no further problems.

Posted by Roman Chernenko  about 1 year ago |  Quote

I received lots of errors/warnings (see below) when tried to validate the submission. But the same file was successfully graduated when I submitted it. So whats wrong with it?

There are 6 warnings and 18 errors

the solution has 18 errors. It will not be accepted as a feasible solution. See the error messages for details.

Errors: - Entry time 07:22:46 after einMax 07:02 (+ max. Bandabweichung PT5M) for Train run sections with route_section_id “18223#142” and Section Marker “TW_Halt” in service_intention “18223” - Entry time 08:02:41 after einMax 07:41 (+ max. Bandabweichung PT5M) for Train run sections with route_section_id “18223#465” and Section Marker “ZB_Halt” in service_intention “18223” - Exit time 08:02:56 after exit_latest 07:45 (+ max. Bandabweichung PT5M) for Train run sections with route_section_id “18223#465” and Section Marker “ZB_Halt” in service_intention “18223” - Entry time 07:46:04 after einMax 07:32 (+ max. Bandabweichung PT5M) for Train run sections with route_section_id “18225#142” and Section Marker “TW_Halt” in service_intention “18225” - Entry time 08:24:59 after einMax 08:11 (+ max. Bandabweichung PT5M) for Train run sections with route_section_id “18225#465” and Section Marker “ZB_Halt” in service_intention “18225” - Exit time 08:25:14 after exit_latest 08:15 (+ max. Bandabweichung PT5M) for Train run sections with route_section_id “18225#465” and Section Marker “ZB_Halt” in service_intention “18225” - Entry time 07:49:02 after einMax 07:09 (+ max. Bandabweichung PT5M) for Train run sections with route_section_id “20423#142” and Section Marker “TW_Halt” in service_intention “20423” - Entry time 08:05:09 after einMax 07:25 (+ max. Bandabweichung PT5M) for Train run sections with route_section_id “20423#295” and Section Marker “ZG_Halt” in service_intention “20423” - Exit time 08:05:24 after exit_latest 07:29 (+ max. Bandabweichung PT5M) for Train run sections with route_section_id “20423#295” and Section Marker “ZG_Halt” in service_intention “20423” - Entry time 08:18:21 after einMax 07:55 (+ max. Bandabweichung PT5M) for Train run sections with route_section_id “20425#295” and Section Marker “ZG_Halt” in service_intention “20425” - Exit time 08:18:36 after exit_latest 07:59 (+ max. Bandabweichung PT5M) for Train run sections with route_section_id “20425#295” and Section Marker “ZG_Halt” in service_intention “20425” - Entry time 07:24:32 after einMax 07:09 (+ max. Bandabweichung PT5M) for Train run sections with route_section_id “20424#350” and Section Marker “ZUE_Halt” in service_intention “20424” - Exit time 07:25:26 after exit_latest 07:14 (+ max. Bandabweichung PT5M) for Train run sections with route_section_id “20424#350” and Section Marker “ZUE_Halt” in service_intention “20424” - Entry time 07:44:42 after einMax 07:17 (+ max. Bandabweichung PT5M) for Train run sections with route_section_id “20524#740” and Section Marker “ZUE_Halt” in service_intention “20524” - Exit time 07:45:16 after exit_latest 07:25 (+ max. Bandabweichung PT5M) for Train run sections with route_section_id “20524#740” and Section Marker “ZUE_Halt” in service_intention “20524” - Entry time 08:26:16 after einMax 08:17 (+ max. Bandabweichung PT5M) for Train run sections with route_section_id “20528#740” and Section Marker “ZUE_Halt” in service_intention “20528” - Entry time 08:07:10 after einMax 07:59 (+ max. Bandabweichung PT5M) for Train run sections with route_section_id “23432#585” and Section Marker “SA_Halt” in service_intention “23432” - Exit time 08:08:08 after exit_latest 08:03 (+ max. Bandabweichung PT5M) for Train run sections with route_section_id “23432#585” and Section Marker “SA_Halt” in service_intention “23432”

Warnings: - Solution with VP-Label “02_a_little_less_dummy” and problem_instance_hash “910955293” has a wrong Hash! Hash: 910955293, expected: -1078720121 - Entry time 07:49:07 after einMax 07:48 for Train run sections with route_section_id “18825#305” and Section Marker “PF_Halt” in service_intention “18825” - Entry time 08:28:04 after einMax 08:28 for Train run sections with route_section_id “20527#402” and Section Marker “ZB_Halt” in service_intention “20527” - Exit time 08:26:50 after exit_latest 08:25 for Train run sections with route_section_id “20528#740” and Section Marker “ZUE_Halt” in service_intention “20528” - Exit time 06:16:39 after exit_latest 06:16 for Train run sections with route_section_id “16920#40” and Section Marker “FRBS” in service_intention “16920” - Exit time 06:46:39 after exit_latest 06:46 for Train run sections with route_section_id “16922#40” and Section Marker “FRBS” in service_intention “16922”

Posted by jordiju  about 1 year ago |  Quote

I received lots of errors/warnings (see below) when tried to validate the submission. But the same file was successfully graduated when I submitted it. So whats wrong with it?

Hi @Roman Chernenko. The errors you receive should in fact only be warnings, because they are a violation of business rule #101, which says delays are allowed. Somebody already reported this problem (that the validator says “error” when it should only be a warning) a while ago, though I can’t find the thread anymore. It was resolved by modifying the ‘parameters’ in all problem instances. If you pull the latest version of the problem instance files, and then validate again, you should no longer receive errors.

The reason the submission is successfully graded is that when you make a submission, the grader actually has a copy of the problem instance files (which of course we updated to have the new parameters). So there you get the correct result.

TL;DR: just update the problem instance files and you should receive the same result as from the grader.

Cheers Julian