Pump It Up — competition status

Static snapshot · 5 September 2026 · no competition data loaded

Project README
Overall plan68 / 68 checkpoints
CurrentCatBoost identity/spatial-grid within-slot bag scored 0.8304 and was observed at public rank #1
Features fully examined
36 / 36Physical hierarchy screens retained the granular features
DrivenData submissions
21Total
Best score
0.8304CatBoost identity/spatial-grid within-slot bag
Target score
0.8260Stretch
Used today (UTC)
3 / 33 of 3 used

Public leaderboard result

Observed 5 September 2026 · rank #1 · score 0.8304 · submission 321154

Open live leaderboard
Historical DrivenData Pump It Up public leaderboard milestone from 23 August 2026, showing anthonypwatts at rank 2 with a best public classification rate of 0.8298
Historical 23 August milestone: this existing screenshot shows rank 2 at 0.8298. It predates and does not depict the 5 September rank #1 result.

Now

Preserve the fixed portfolio and stop adaptive tuning.

Search complete

Recorded: the fixed slate scored 0.8302, 0.8304 and 0.8303; the CatBoost identity/spatial-grid within-slot bag, submission 321154, was observed at rank #1.

  1. Preserve all three exact validated CSVs, the manifest, component weights and SHA-256 values.
  2. Keep the labelled-only reconstruction evidence and historical local evidence beside the public scores.
  3. Retain the locked submission order, IDs and unchanged score record.
  4. Record private-leaderboard performance when it becomes available.

Boundary: rank #1 is a time-specific observation; the three recorded scores and validated artefacts are the durable evidence. The image alongside is explicitly the earlier rank-2 milestone.

Next: move attention back to assessed course work rather than tune against public feedback.

Course workflow

Ten course steps. Iteration is expected; checkpoints advance only when evidence exists.

DoneActiveQueued
Course stepStatusProgressEvidence or next gate
Step 01Define the goal & scope Done 3 / 3 Problem, users, metric, competition rules and data boundary recorded.
Step 02Gather the data Done 2 / 2 Training features, labels and test inputs are present; source structure and column policy are recorded.
Step 03Explore the data Done 4 / 4 Maintained overall report and 117 predictor notebooks cover structure, distributions, limitations, relationships and feature families.
Step 04Clean & preprocess the data Done 3 / 3 Guarded cleanup and fold-fitted preprocessing are implemented and have run inside a complete pipeline across all five development folds.
Step 05Select & engineer features Done 36 / 36audit · separate metric All candidates are audited; the final synthesis retains accepted features plus the supported identity, frequency and spatial-height representations.
Step 06Define the ML task Done 4 / 4 Multiclass classification, accuracy, class imbalance, label integrity and exact feature/label ID alignment are recorded.
Step 07Partition the data Done 3 / 3 A stratified 20% local test set and five development folds are frozen with seeds and fingerprints; the majority reference is recorded.
Step 08Select & train candidate methods Done 3 / 3 Eleven classifier families are reproducibly evaluated; seven bounded MLP configurations and 84 no-refit ANN blends produced no promotion.
Step 09Evaluate & interpret results Done 3 / 3reference + 20 workflows The historical seed-20260824 deep archive retained 81.898% development and 81.397% used-local-test evidence; fresh all-label OOF reconstruction admitted two conservative within-slot bags and their fixed combination as exploratory candidates.
Step 10Deploy & iterate Done 3 / 3 The fixed three-entry slate scored 83.02%, 83.04% and 83.03%; submission 321154 established the 83.04% public best and was observed at rank #1.
Training rows
59,400
Test rows
14,850
Candidate predictors
36
Target classes
3
Metric
Accuracy
Locally evaluated
21