Berth occupancy point and range-maximum queries at scale
Exact prompt
# Marina berth occupancy queries at scale `input.json` (synthetic) has `bookings` ([start, end) integer minute pairs), `points` (integer times) and `ranges` ([l, r) pairs). Write `solve.py` (Python 3 standard library only); `python solve.py input.json answer.json`. One hidden input has **150,000 bookings and about 300,000 queries and must finish within 20 seconds** (other runs: 30 s). Answers must be exact. ## Rules 1. A booking with start > end is invalid: count it in `invalid_bookings` and ignore it. A booking with start == end is ignored (not invalid). Duplicate bookings count separately. 2. Occupancy at integer time t = number of valid bookings with start <= t < end. 3. `points`: occupancy at each time, in input order. 4. `ranges`: for each [l, r): if l >= r the answer is null; otherwise the maximum occupancy over all integer t with l <= t < r. In input order. 5. `peak` = maximum occupancy over all times (0 if there are no valid bookings); `peak_first_time` = the earliest time it is reached (null if peak is 0). ## answer.json `{"invalid_bookings", "peak", "peak_first_time", "points": [...], "ranges": [...]}` ## Scoring Hidden checks (partial credit; all must pass; all exact): `invalid_and_peak`, `point_queries`, `range_max_queries` on the given input; `fresh_run_1`, `fresh_run_2`; `big_150k_bookings_300k_queries_20s`.
The rules are simple and a brute-force answer is correct on small inputs, so separation comes from choosing a sweep plus range-maximum structure and getting the half-open boundaries right. Original benchmark task written for usecaserank.com (not based on a specific public post). Headless, offline run on a reproducible fixture. Each run's notes say how its cost was measured (estimates are marked).
Success criteria: 1. invalid_and_peak 2. point_queries 3. range_max_queries 4. fresh_run_1 5. fresh_run_2 6. big_150k_bookings_300k_queries_20s
Best model for this task so far: Claude Haiku 5.5 (effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on) (success, $0.0072, 43s).
All runs (4)
100% pass rate across 4 eligible runs: 4 pass, 0 partial, 0 fail. Partial and failed runs are listed below with everything else.ⓘ
| Model | Cost | Time | Step-insⓘ | Autonomy | Outcome | Trustⓘ | Date | Compare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OGPT-6.1 Soldefault · thinking on | $0.04 | 53s | 0 | Fully autonomous | pass | Trust 80% | 2026-10-22 | |
| AClaude Haiku 5.5default · thinking on | $0.0072 | 43s | 0 | Fully autonomous | pass | Trust 80% | 2026-10-20 | |
| AClaude Opus 5.5default · thinking on | $0.14 | 40s | 0 | Fully autonomous | pass | Trust 80% | 2026-10-20 | |
| AClaude Sonnet 5.5default · thinking on | $0.05 | 16s | 0 | Fully autonomous | pass | Trust 80% | 2026-10-20 |
Embed this result
A live badge for this use case. It links back here and updates as new runs are published.
Get new runs and ranking changes weekly
Which models got better or cheaper on real tasks like this one.