Tide height by rule of twelfths and cosine, with under-keel clearance windows
Exact prompt
# Tide height by rule of twelfths and cosine, and under-keel clearance `input.json` (synthetic, not for navigation) gives two consecutive tide events `event1` and `event2` (`time_min` minutes, `height_m`; either rising or falling), `chart_depth_m`, the boat's `draft_m`, required `min_ukc_m`, `need_minutes`, and `queries` (minutes). Write `solve.py` (Python 3 standard library only); `python solve.py input.json answer.json` writes `answer.json` and `tide.svg`. Fresh inputs are used too. ## Rules Let T = event2 time - event1 time and f = (t - event1 time) / T clamped to [0, 1]. Height = h1 + (h2 - h1) * F(f). - **Twelfths**: split [0, 1] into 6 equal parts; cumulative fractions at the part boundaries are 0, 1, 3, 6, 9, 11, 12 twelfths; interpolate linearly inside a part. - **Cosine**: F(f) = (1 - cos(pi * f)) / 2. - Under-keel clearance UKC = chart_depth + height(twelfths) - draft. A query is `safe` if UKC >= min_ukc. `required_height_m` = draft + min_ukc - chart_depth. - Safe window (per method): scan whole minutes t from event1 to event2 inclusive; a run is consecutive minutes with height >= required height. Report the first run whose length end - start (minutes) is >= `need_minutes` as `{"start", "end"}` (first and last safe minute), or null. - `max_method_diff_m`: the largest |twelfths - cosine| over those whole minutes. Use a 1e-9 tolerance on the >= comparisons. Round heights and UKC to 3 decimals. ## Visual output: tide.svg Static, self-contained SVG (root `<svg>`, no scripts, images, links or external assets; renders headless) with `<polyline id="tide-twelfths">`, `<polyline id="tide-cosine">` and `<line id="min-depth-line">` at the required height. The drawing itself is not graded. ## answer.json `{"required_height_m", "queries": [{"t", "twelfths", "cosine", "ukc", "safe"}, ...], "window_twelfths", "window_cosine", "max_method_diff_m"}` ## Scoring Hidden checks (partial credit; all must pass): `query_heights`, `safe_windows` (exact), `method_difference`, `tide_svg_static` (tide.svg exists, follows the static rules, has the ids/tags above), `fresh_run_1`, `fresh_run_2`. Numbers within 0.0015. 60-second limit per run.
Piecewise twelfths interpolation vs the cosine curve on rising and falling tides, a clamped fraction, a minute-by-minute run search with a length rule, and exact window endpoints. 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).
Benchmark code for comparing AI models, not navigation or safety software.
Success criteria: 1. query_heights 2. safe_windows 3. method_difference 4. tide_svg_static 5. fresh_run_1 6. fresh_run_2
Best model for this task so far: Claude Haiku 5.5 (effort default (no --effort flag) · thinking on) (success, $0.0083, 37s).
Latest output per model
All runs (9)
89% pass rate across 9 eligible runs: 8 pass, 0 partial, 1 fail. Partial and failed runs are listed below with everything else.ⓘ
| Model | Cost | Time | Step-insⓘ | Autonomy | Outcome | Trustⓘ | Date | Compare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct (Venice)thinking on | $0.0020 | 24s | 0 | Fully autonomous | fail | Trust 80% | 2026-10-26 | |
| DDeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Venice)thinking on | $0.01 | 44s | 0 | Fully autonomous | pass | Trust 80% | 2026-10-23 | |
| GGemini 4 Argonmedium · thinking on | $0.27 | 5m | 0 | Fully autonomous | pass | Trust 80% | 2026-10-22 | |
| GGemini 3.8 Flashmedium · thinking on | $0.39 | 4m | 0 | Fully autonomous | pass | Trust 80% | 2026-10-22 | |
| OGPT-6.1 Soldefault · thinking on | $0.05 | 1m | 0 | Fully autonomous | pass | Trust 80% | 2026-10-22 | |
| AClaude Haiku 5.5default · thinking on | $0.0083 | 37s | 0 | Fully autonomous | pass | Trust 80% | 2026-10-20 | |
| AClaude Haiku 5.5default · thinking on | $0.0083 | 37s | 0 | Fully autonomous | pass | Trust 80% | 2026-10-20 | |
| AClaude Opus 5.5default · thinking on | $0.19 | 35s | 0 | Fully autonomous | pass | Trust 80% | 2026-10-20 | |
| AClaude Sonnet 5.5default · thinking on | $0.06 | 18s | 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.