**I’m writing to raise a concern about competitive integrity and transparency around the current leaderboard.
\nI noticed that a participant (Aaron Woods) has a perfect score (100) on the leaderboard, and I also observed social connections between participants and accounts that appear to be close to the host/community (e.g., “techtech69” following “AutoHDR,” who appears to be the host).
\nTo be clear, I’m not accusing anyone of wrongdoing — but given the unusual score and perceived proximity, I’d appreciate clarification on:
\nWhat anti-cheating / anti-collusion measures are in place (leak checks, submission audits, code review, etc.)?
\nWhether top submissions will be required to share code and training logs for verification
\nWhether there is any independent review of the top solutions before prizes are awarded
\nI’m asking because I want to be confident that the competition is being run fairly and transparently for all participants.**
", "messages": [ { "id": 3409366, "postDate": "2026-02-22T17:59:49.743Z", "content": "**I’m writing to raise a concern about competitive integrity and transparency around the current leaderboard.
\nI noticed that a participant (Aaron Woods) has a perfect score (100) on the leaderboard, and I also observed social connections between participants and accounts that appear to be close to the host/community (e.g., “techtech69” following “AutoHDR,” who appears to be the host).
\nTo be clear, I’m not accusing anyone of wrongdoing — but given the unusual score and perceived proximity, I’d appreciate clarification on:
\nWhat anti-cheating / anti-collusion measures are in place (leak checks, submission audits, code review, etc.)?
\nWhether top submissions will be required to share code and training logs for verification
\nWhether there is any independent review of the top solutions before prizes are awarded
\nI’m asking because I want to be confident that the competition is being run fairly and transparently for all participants.**
", "rawMarkdown": "**I’m writing to raise a concern about competitive integrity and transparency around the current leaderboard.\n\nI noticed that a participant (Aaron Woods) has a perfect score (100) on the leaderboard, and I also observed social connections between participants and accounts that appear to be close to the host/community (e.g., “techtech69” following “AutoHDR,” who appears to be the host).\n\nTo be clear, I’m not accusing anyone of wrongdoing — but given the unusual score and perceived proximity, I’d appreciate clarification on:\n\nWhat anti-cheating / anti-collusion measures are in place (leak checks, submission audits, code review, etc.)?\n\nWhether top submissions will be required to share code and training logs for verification\n\nWhether there is any independent review of the top solutions before prizes are awarded\n\nI’m asking because I want to be confident that the competition is being run fairly and transparently for all participants.**", "votes": 7 }, { "id": 3409371, "postDate": "2026-02-22T18:16:42.683Z", "content": "i had an agent go awol and submit csv's that didn't have actual processed images correctly. \nmy highest score is a 30 . so do not fret. ugh. im sorry 😅
\nI was trying to automate submissions and the workflow i had running was to:
\ncreate images ZIP (1000 JPGs) -> \nbounty scoring -> \n*_scored.csv -> \nKaggle submit
\nand it lost the sauce (i could've been supervising it better)
", "rawMarkdown": "i had an agent go awol and submit csv's that didn't have actual processed images correctly. \nmy highest score is a 30 . so do not fret. ugh. im sorry 😅\n\nI was trying to automate submissions and the workflow i had running was to:\n\ncreate images ZIP (1000 JPGs) -> \nbounty scoring -> \n*_scored.csv -> \nKaggle submit\n\nand it lost the sauce (i could've been supervising it better)\n", "replies": [ { "id": 3409382, "postDate": "2026-02-22T18:51:12.920Z", "rawMarkdown": "", "isDeleted": true } ] }, { "id": 3409369, "postDate": "2026-02-22T18:02:00.987Z", "content": "Is a perfect score of 100 actually possible given the metrics (SSIM, Edge Similarity, etc.)?\nIt seems mathematically improbable for a blind correction task.
", "rawMarkdown": "Is a perfect score of 100 actually possible given the metrics (SSIM, Edge Similarity, etc.)?\nIt seems mathematically improbable for a blind correction task." }, { "id": 3409368, "postDate": "2026-02-22T18:01:09.647Z", "content": "i had an agent go awol and submit csv's that didn't have actual processed images correctly. \nmy highest score is a 30 . so do not fret. ugh. im sorry 😅
\nI was trying to automate submissions and the workflow i had running was to:
\ncreate images ZIP (1000 JPGs) -> \nbounty scoring -> \n*_scored.csv -> \nKaggle submit
\nand it lost the sauce (i could've been supervising it better)
", "votes": 0, "replies": [ { "id": 3409382, "author_name": "", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2026-02-22T18:51:12.920000", "content": "", "votes": 0, "replies": [] } ] }, { "id": 3409369, "author_name": "yasukawatoyoki", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2026-02-22T18:02:00.987000", "content": "Is a perfect score of 100 actually possible given the metrics (SSIM, Edge Similarity, etc.)?\nIt seems mathematically improbable for a blind correction task.
", "votes": 0, "replies": [] }, { "id": 3409368, "author_name": "Melina Guergueb", "author_url": "", "post_date": "2026-02-22T18:01:09.647000", "content": "