MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226355852 · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3159027

Construction of Standard Solid Sudoku Cubes and 3D Sudoku Puzzles

2022· article· en· W4226355852 on OpenAlexaff
Mehrab Najafian, T. Aaron Gulliver, Morteza Esmaeili

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topicgraph theory and CDMA systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNotationCube (algebra)MathematicsOrder (exchange)Table (database)CombinatoricsAlgorithmDiscrete mathematicsComputer scienceArithmeticData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, standard solid Sudoku cubes (SSSCs), a three-dimensional (3D) extension of Sudoku tables, are introduced, and a method to construct these cubes is presented. This is the first class of standard solid Sudoku cubes. An SSSC of order$m$is a solid Latin cube of order$m$with solid subcubes of order$x \times y \times z$in which each element occurs exactly once in each row, column, depth, and subcube. The structure of these cubes is based on cyclotomic cosets of$\mathbf {Z}_{n}$, and we make use of a vector$Z$and a basic table$T$to construct SSSCs. We obtain$m$tables by multiplying all entries of$T$by a number from the vector$Z$. Then, these tables are converted to an SSSC by stacking them in order. Based on this method of construction, a perfect set of strongly mutually distinct standard solid Sudoku cubes is designed. We also provide a two-dimensional (2D) representation of these SSSCs in a table with numbers placed on the main diagonal of its subtables. Finally, a new class of 3D Sudoku puzzles based on SSSCs is presented as standard solid Sudoku puzzles (SSSPs).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicgraph theory and CDMA systemsFrench-language works237,207