Hi, I noticed a possible inconsistency in
earthquake-plate-calculation-5 at commit
a0da045a8bf64b8a8ff20730c4d6ef10dc4e2c5b.
-
instruction.md first asks for the plate with the highest number of
earthquakes, but later defines distance_km as the distance to the
Pacific plate boundary.
-
tests/test_outputs.py expects:
target_plate = "SU"
earthquake_count = 134
id = "us7000myfa"
distance_km = 419.32
These values appear to follow the Sunda-plate interpretation, although
the verifier comments refer to the Pacific plate.
-
solution/solve.sh explicitly selects the Pacific plate, filters
earthquakes within it, selects PA boundaries, and computes distance
to those Pacific boundaries.
Could you clarify whether the intended task is:
- to dynamically select the plate with the most earthquakes and calculate
distance to that plate's boundary; or
- to analyze only the Pacific plate?
It may be helpful to align the instruction, expected verifier values,
verifier comments, and reference solution.
Thank you for releasing the benchmark.
Hi, I noticed a possible inconsistency in
earthquake-plate-calculation-5at commita0da045a8bf64b8a8ff20730c4d6ef10dc4e2c5b.instruction.mdfirst asks for the plate with the highest number ofearthquakes, but later defines
distance_kmas the distance to thePacific plate boundary.
tests/test_outputs.pyexpects:target_plate = "SU"earthquake_count = 134id = "us7000myfa"distance_km = 419.32These values appear to follow the Sunda-plate interpretation, although
the verifier comments refer to the Pacific plate.
solution/solve.shexplicitly selects the Pacific plate, filtersearthquakes within it, selects
PAboundaries, and computes distanceto those Pacific boundaries.
Could you clarify whether the intended task is:
distance to that plate's boundary; or
It may be helpful to align the instruction, expected verifier values,
verifier comments, and reference solution.
Thank you for releasing the benchmark.