Research on Automatic Problem-Solving Technology of Olympic Mathematics in Primary Schools Based on AORBCO Model

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

THE COMPARISON OF THE PROBLEM-SOLVING SUCCESS RATES BETWEEN THIS SYSTEM AND OTHER PLATFORMS

Problem-solving system	Success rate of problemsolving	Average problemsolving time
This system	78.5%	1min30s
Little ape search questions	65%	2min10s
Homework Help	60%	2min30s

Rule structuring

member name	data structure	describe
label	String	unique identification of the rule
ruleTriple	List<GraphTriple>	regular triplet
conclusionTriples	List<GraphTriple>	rule conclusion triplet
instantiatedCategory	String	Rule classification
instantiatedDescription	String	Simple description of rules
commonText	String	Regular mathematical text

COMPARISON OF PROBLEM-SOLVING EFFECTIVENESS ACROSS DIFFERENT QUESTION TYPES

Type of question category	Success rate of problem-solving	Average problemsolving time
Basic Operations and Relations	85%	1min10s
Geometry and tree planting	75%	1min30s
Application problems	72%	1min40s
Special question types and techniques	68%	1min50s
Other categories	80%	1min20s

EXPERIMENTAL ENVIRONMENT

Component	Details
Hardware	Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3770 CPU
	16GB RAM
	1.5T hard disk
Software	Windows 10
	Java development platform IDEA
	Graph database Neo4j
	Symbolic computation platform Maple

PHASE TRANSITION PARAMETERS

Phase	Active Nodes	Weight Concentration	Trigger Condition
Initial Activation	12→9	N/A	Knowledge filtering
Rule Matching	9→14	54%→61%	Constraint identification
Cognitive Optimization	14→5	61%→89%	Path pruning activation

RULE BASE EVOLUTION METRICS

Time Interval (h)	New Rules Generated	Error Rate (%)	Avg. Confidence
0-12	148	18.2	0.76
12-24	92	12.1	0.83
24-48	165	9.7	0.88
48-72	101	6.3	0.91