▸case-01 I have drafted a paper introducing a custom filtering algorithm and new propagation bounds for cumulative global constraints in disjunctive scheduling problems, evaluated against Choco and OR-Tools solvers across standard benchmark sets. I'd like a venue-fit assessment for submitting to the CP conference. Please provide a structured diagnostic that includes: your assessment of fit level (High/Medium/Low) with a one-sentence rationale, the target conference name, the core contribution type, the single biggest evidence gap in our manuscript, administrative or policy items we must re-check in the official guidelines, the main rejection risk for this venue, and alternative venue routing suggestions if applicable. | fail→pass | 13,190 | 11,690 | -11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,069 | 3,115 | +51% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-02 We developed a novel CDCL-based Boolean satisfiability solver that speeds up clause learning using GPU acceleration. We are considering sending this work to the CP (Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming) conference. Please run a pre-submission review for us and output your analysis following a clear structure: state the fit rating and brief reason, identify the target venue, categorize our contribution type, point out the critical missing evidence or baseline, list official CFP/author kit policies we need to re-verify, highlight the venue-specific top rejection risk, and provide re-routing recommendations if another venue matches better. | fail→pass | 26,148 | 12,390 | -53% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,256 | 3,182 | -2% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-03 Our manuscript presents a declarative modeling framework that integrates constraint programming propagation with integer linear programming cuts for multi-echelon logistics planning. We have benchmark results against standard ILP and CP baselines, but want to make sure the narrative is tailored for CP. Can you evaluate our paper's readiness and output an assessment report containing fit level with reason, target venue, contribution category, primary evidence gap, official submission checklist items to verify against the current CFP, top rejection risk, and suitable re-routing options if needed? | fail→pass | 24,691 | 15,445 | -37% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,048 | 3,478 | -14% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-04 I am writing a paper in LaTeX for submission to a computer science venue. My document uses the `llncs` package and throws an error: `LaTeX Error: Command \proof already defined.` Please provide the exact LaTeX fix or code snippet to resolve this macro conflict between `amsmath` and `llncs`. | fail→fail | 6,659 | 14,243 | +114% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,359 | 3,525 | +159% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-05 We are writing a custom propagator in C++ for a constraint solver using BitSet domains for a domain size of 64. Please write a C++ code snippet for a propagator class function `propagate()` that computes bitwise intersection and removes assigned values from the domain. | pass→fail | 28,854 | 24,266 | -16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,600 | 5,310 | +15% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-06 A reviewer for our paper requested clarification on the worst-case time complexity of our all-different constraint propagation algorithm. Draft a polite 2-paragraph response to the reviewer explaining that the filtering algorithm runs in O(n^2.5) time using Hopcroft-Karp matching and detail how we will update Section 4.2. | pass→pass | 12,957 | 11,730 | -9% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,456 | 2,931 | +101% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-07 We have developed a novel decision heuristic for pure Boolean satisfiability solvers that optimizes clause learning on industrial SAT instances. We are thinking of submitting to CP. We want a pre-submission diagnostic using the standardized venue assessment tags ([Fit], [Target], [Contribution type], [Main evidence gap], [Official items to re-check], [Top rejection risk], [Re-route suggestion]). We suspect CP is ideal because SAT is a constraint problem, but please evaluate. | fail→fail | 21,225 | 15,173 | -29% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,484 | 3,231 | +30% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-08 Our paper presents a description logic reasoner for OWL 2 EL ontologies with complex role inclusions. We want a pre-submission review for CP using the exact tag block output ([Fit], [Target], [Contribution type], [Main evidence gap], [Official items to re-check], [Top rejection risk], [Re-route suggestion]). We believe CP is the right home because ontologies represent domain constraints. | pass→pass | 10,969 | 11,797 | +8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,864 | 3,020 | +62% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-09 We constructed a heuristic search planner for temporal automated planning with duration-dependent effects and action concurrency. We want an evaluation for submitting to CP with the bracketed report layout ([Fit], [Target], [Contribution type], [Main evidence gap], [Official items to re-check], [Top rejection risk], [Re-route suggestion]). Should we send this to CP or somewhere else? | pass→fail | 17,371 | 16,001 | -8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,928 | 3,014 | +56% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-10 Our work introduces a hybrid Benders decomposition approach that combines Column Generation for integer linear programming with CP propagation for routing constraints. We want a venue-fit assessment using the standard structured output format ([Fit], [Target], [Contribution type], [Main evidence gap], [Official items to re-check], [Top rejection risk], [Re-route suggestion]). Is CP or CPAIOR a better primary venue? | pass→pass | 11,936 | 9,914 | -17% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,089 | 3,450 | +65% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-11 We designed a new global constraint propagator for the sequence constraint that reduces filtering time from cubic to quadratic complexity, with benchmark evaluations on MiniZinc across XCSP3 datasets. Please provide a venue assessment following the standard output tags ([Fit], [Target], [Contribution type], [Main evidence gap], [Official items to re-check], [Top rejection risk], [Re-route suggestion]). | fail→pass | 14,510 | 12,323 | -15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,366 | 3,144 | +33% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-12 We created a novel high-level constraint modeling language that automatically detects symmetry and compiles to multiple constraint solvers (OR-Tools, Gecode, Choco). Please evaluate its fit for CP using the bracketed assessment format ([Fit], [Target], [Contribution type], [Main evidence gap], [Official items to re-check], [Top rejection risk], [Re-route suggestion]). | pass→pass | 15,753 | 8,537 | -46% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,702 | 3,375 | +98% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-13 We modified the search algorithm in a CP solver by adding dynamic restart strategies combined with variable ordering heuristics. Our paper reports a 15% aggregate runtime improvement across 200 CSPLib instances, but we did not isolate which component (restarts vs ordering) caused the improvement. Give us a pre-submission analysis with standard bracketed output tags ([Fit], [Target], [Contribution type], [Main evidence gap], [Official items to re-check], [Top rejection risk], [Re-route suggestion]). | pass→pass | 20,089 | 15,866 | -21% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,482 | 3,654 | +47% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-14 We present a new propagator for the cumulative constraint and benchmarked it against solver baselines from 2012 (Gecode 3.7). Please run a venue assessment using the required structured diagnostic block ([Fit], [Target], [Contribution type], [Main evidence gap], [Official items to re-check], [Top rejection risk], [Re-route suggestion]). | pass→pass | 10,021 | 13,438 | +34% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,614 | 3,344 | +107% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-15 We want to submit our constraint programming paper to CP. We need a pre-submission report formatted with the standard output template ([Fit], [Target], [Contribution type], [Main evidence gap], [Official items to re-check], [Top rejection risk], [Re-route suggestion]). Which official source domain should we check to verify the current year's CFP and author rules? | fail→pass | 16,930 | 13,378 | -21% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,983 | 3,040 | +53% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-16 We are preparing a CP paper submission on constraint modeling for scheduling. In Section 3, we included a direct GitHub link to our public laboratory repository `github.com/mylab-stanford/cpsolver` containing our names and affiliation in the README. Run a venue check using the standard output layout ([Fit], [Target], [Contribution type], [Main evidence gap], [Official items to re-check], [Top rejection risk], [Re-route suggestion]). | pass→pass | 9,595 | 6,239 | -35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,748 | 2,931 | +68% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-17 Our draft on propagation bounds for disjunctive constraints is currently 18 pages long in single-column IEEE format without checking the current conference submission template or page limits. Assess our paper using the bracketed venue output tags ([Fit], [Target], [Contribution type], [Main evidence gap], [Official items to re-check], [Top rejection risk], [Re-route suggestion]). | pass→pass | 15,181 | 7,461 | -51% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,757 | 2,986 | +70% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-18 We trained a deep Transformer model on synthetic graphs to directly output graph coloring assignments without using constraint models, propagation, or CP solvers. We want to submit to CP because graph coloring is a benchmark problem in CP. Output your analysis using the bracketed diagnostic tags ([Fit], [Target], [Contribution type], [Main evidence gap], [Official items to re-check], [Top rejection risk], [Re-route suggestion]). | pass→pass | 12,757 | 12,437 | -3% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,039 | 3,049 | +50% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-19 Our team is submitting a benchmark dataset paper for constraint satisfaction problems to CP. Provide the structured venue diagnostic block ([Fit], [Target], [Contribution type], [Main evidence gap], [Official items to re-check], [Top rejection risk], [Re-route suggestion]) detailing the exact administrative policies we need to check on the live site. | fail→fail | 12,909 | 6,291 | -51% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,074 | 2,859 | +38% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-20 We present a theoretical proof and algorithmic implementation for dynamic symmetry breaking during search in constraint satisfaction problems. Evaluate our submission readiness using the bracketed tag format ([Fit], [Target], [Contribution type], [Main evidence gap], [Official items to re-check], [Top rejection risk], [Re-route suggestion]). | pass→pass | 12,990 | 8,411 | -35% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,286 | 3,293 | +156% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-21 Our paper presents a fast search heuristic for MiniZinc constraint models that outperforms default Gecode search on 80% of CSPLib instances. However, we omitted the 20% of instances where our heuristic caused exponential slowdowns because we wanted to highlight the positive results. Run a venue check with the standard output template ([Fit], [Target], [Contribution type], [Main evidence gap], [Official items to re-check], [Top rejection risk], [Re-route suggestion]). | pass→pass | 10,464 | 10,976 | +5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,612 | 2,914 | +81% | 0 | 0 | — |
▸case-22 We wrote a 12-page manuscript on global constraint propagation where all the core proofs and baseline comparison plots were moved entirely into external supplementary links, leaving only high-level prose in the main paper. Evaluate our paper for CP using the exact tag block output ([Fit], [Target], [Contribution type], [Main evidence gap], [Official items to re-check], [Top rejection risk], [Re-route suggestion]). | pass→fail | 15,221 | 11,449 | -25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,700 | 3,042 | +79% | 0 | 0 | — |