X_1$ is larger than its symmetry $X_4$. Therefore all solutions in this symmetry class are eliminated.

Suppose, on the other hand, $X_3$ goes first in the lex-leader constraint. Consider now the symmetry class of solutions: $X_1,\ldots,X_4=1,2,3,4$ and $X_1,\ldots,X_4=4,3,2,1$. The lex-leader constraint eliminates the first solution as $X_3$ is greater than its symmetry $X_2$. Suppose now that the second solution is not eliminated. Puget’s method ensures the first occurrence of 1 is before that of 4. Puget’s method therefore uses an ordering on variables which puts $X_4$ before $X_1$. Consider now the symmetry class of solutions: $X_1,\ldots,X_4=1,3,2,4$ and $X_1,\ldots,X_4=4,2,3,1$. Puget’s method eliminates the first solution as 4 occurs before 1 in any ordering that put $X_4$ before $X_1$. And the lex-leader constraint eliminates the second solution as $X_3$ is larger than its symmetry $X_2$. Therefore all solutions in this symmetry class are eliminated.

Value precedence
----------------

We end with a special but common case where variable and value symmetry breaking do not conflict. When values partition into interchangeable sets, Puget’s method is equivalent to breaking symmetry by enforcing value precedence [@llcp2004; @wecai2006]. Given any two interchangeable values $i$ and $j$ with $i<j$, a value  constraint ensures that if $i$ occurs then the first occurrence of $i$ is before that of $j$. It is safe to break row and column symmetry with  and value symmetry with  when value precedence considers variables either in a row-wise or in a column-wise order. This is a simple consequence of Theorem 1 in [@llcp2004]. It follows that it is also safe to use  to break value symmetry when using constraints like derivable from the lex-leader method.

Snake Lex
=========

A promising alternative to for breaking row and column symmetries is [@snakelex]. This is also derived from the lex leader method, but now applied to a snake-wise unfolding of
X_1 $ is larger than its symmetry $ X_4$. Therefore all solutions in this isotropy course are excrete. 

 Suppose, on the other hand, $ X_3 $ go first in the lex - leader restraint. Consider now the symmetry course of solution: $ X_1,\ldots, X_4=1,2,3,4 $ and $ X_1,\ldots, X_4=4,3,2,1$. The lex - leader restraint eliminates the first solution as $ X_3 $ is greater than its symmetry $ X_2$. presuppose now that the second solution is not eliminated. Puget ’s method ensures the first happening of 1 is before that of 4. Puget ’s method therefore uses an order on variables which puts $ X_4 $ before $ X_1$. Consider now the symmetry class of solution: $ X_1,\ldots, X_4=1,3,2,4 $ and $ X_1,\ldots, X_4=4,2,3,1$. Puget ’s method eliminates the first solution as 4 occurs before 1 in any ordering that place $ X_4 $ before $ X_1$. And the lex - leader constraint eliminates the second solution as $ X_3 $ is larger than its symmetry $ X_2$. Therefore all solutions in this symmetry class are eliminated. 

 Value precedence 
 ---------------- 

 We end with a special but common case where variable and value symmetry breaking do not conflict. When value partition into interchangeable sets, Puget ’s method acting is equivalent to break in isotropy by enforcing value precedence [ @llcp2004; @wecai2006 ]. Given any two interchangeable values $ i$ and $ j$ with $ i < j$, a value   constraint ensures that if $ i$ occurs then the inaugural occurrence of $ i$ is before that of $ j$. It is safe to break row and column symmetry with   and value symmetry with   when value precession considers variables either in a row - wise or in a column - fresh order. This is a elementary consequence of Theorem 1 in [ @llcp2004 ]. It follows that it is also safe to use   to break value isotropy when using constraints like derivable from the lex - leader method. 

 Snake Lex 
 = = = = = = = = = 

 A promising alternative to for breaking row and column symmetries is [ @snakelex ]. This is besides derived from the lex leader method, but now applied to a hydra - wise unfolding of
X_1$ id larger than its symmetvy $X_4$. Therefore all soluvions ih this shmmetry class are eliminated.

Duppose, on the other hand, $X_3$ gues first in the oex-ltader constraint. Rknsider now tgc symkxtry class of splutions: $X_1,\ndots,X_4=1,2,3,4$ and $X_1,\ldmtr,X_4=4,3,2,1$. The lex-leader constraint eliminatef the fordt solution as $X_3$ ix greznev than its symmetry $X_2$. Suppose nos that uhe second solutiom is not eliminated. Puget’s metjod ensures the figst occurrebce jd 1 is before that of 4. Kuyet’s method therefore uses an ordering on xariayles which kbrs $D_4$ before $X_1$. Cinsidvr now the symmetry cnass of solutions: $X_1,\ldpts,E_4=1,3,2,4$ ane $X_1,\ldots,X_4=4,2,3,1$. Puget’s methmd eliminates the sirst solgtnon as 4 occurs before 1 un ani ordarine thxt kut $X_4$ beforf $X_1$. And the lsx-leader cobstraint eliminates trv second solufion af $V_3$ is larger than its symmetry $X_2$. Therefoge aml solutions in this synmetry class are elimlnated.

Valte precedence
----------------

We end with a special but common casa whece vaxlwcoe and value symmetry breaking do not conflict. Rgem nalues partition lnto interchangeabke srjs, Puget’s methud is zsujvalent to breakinh symmejry by enforcind vakue precedence [@llcp2004; @wecai2006]. Guven any two unterchangeable vapues $i$ and $l$ with $i<j$, a value  constraint ensurzs thaf if $i$ occugs then tgd first occurrenze pf $i$ is before that of $j$. It ys safe ti brzak row xnd volumn symmetry aith  and value symmetry aith  chen ealue precfdence considers variables eithxc in a row-wisg os it a coluin-wisc order. This is a simple consgquence oy Theofem 1 in [@llbp2004]. It folnows that ie is also safa to use  to bceak valuq synmetey when jsing constraimts like btrivable feom the lex-leader ketfkd.

Snake Lex
=========

A primiwing alternativr tu fjr bceakigc row and conumn syoketrids is [@snakeodx]. Tnis is also derived xrom the lex leader meyhjd, but niw appliqd to a snake-eise unfolding of
X_1$ is larger than its symmetry $X_4$. solutions this symmetry are eliminated. Suppose, goes in the lex-leader Consider now the class of solutions: $X_1,\ldots,X_4=1,2,3,4$ and $X_1,\ldots,X_4=4,3,2,1$. lex-leader constraint eliminates the first solution as $X_3$ is greater than its symmetry Suppose now that the second solution is not eliminated. Puget’s method ensures the occurrence 1 before of 4. Puget’s method therefore uses an ordering on variables which puts $X_4$ before $X_1$. Consider the symmetry class of solutions: $X_1,\ldots,X_4=1,3,2,4$ and $X_1,\ldots,X_4=4,2,3,1$. method eliminates the first as 4 occurs before 1 any that put before And lex-leader constraint eliminates second solution as $X_3$ is larger than its symmetry $X_2$. Therefore all solutions in this symmetry class eliminated. Value We end a but case where variable symmetry breaking do not conflict. When interchangeable sets, Puget’s method is equivalent to breaking by enforcing precedence [@llcp2004; @wecai2006]. Given any two values $i$ and $j$ with $i<j$, a value ensures that if $i$ occurs then the first occurrence of $i$ is before that of is safe to break and column symmetry and symmetry when precedence considers either in a row-wise or in a column-wise order. This is simple consequence of Theorem 1 in [@llcp2004]. It follows that also to use to value symmetry when using like from the lex-leader method. ========= promising breaking and symmetries is [@snakelex]. This also derived from the lex method, but now applied
X_1$ is larger than its symmetry $X_4$. therefore aLl solUtiOns In This SymmEtry class are elIMinaTed.

Suppose, on the other haNd, $X_3$ goEs FIrst IN tHe lex-Leader cONsTRAinT. COnSidEr NOw The syMmeTry clasS of solutioNs: $X_1,\LdOts,X_4=1,2,3,4$ and $X_1,\ldotS,x_4=4,3,2,1$. THe lex-leadeR coNstraint elimInaTes the FiRst SOlutiOn aS $X_3$ is gReater THan its Symmetry $X_2$. suPPose noW That the SECoNd soLution is not eliminATeD. puget’s method enSures tHe FIrST OccUrrEnce of 1 is beFoRe thaT Of 4. Puget’S MeTHOD thERefore uses an oRdering on vaRIabLes whiCh PutS $x_4$ beforE $X_1$. ConSiDEr nOw the symmetRy clAss of soluTions: $X_1,\LDots,X_4=1,3,2,4$ anD $x_1,\ldots,X_4=4,2,3,1$. puget’s MetHod ElimINaTeS thE fIRst SOlUtiON as 4 Occurs beFoRe 1 In any OrdeRING That Put $x_4$ befOre $X_1$. ANd the lex-leadeR coNstrAInt ElimiNates The sEcOnd soLution As $X_3$ is LaRger than its symmEtry $x_2$. ThereforE alL sOluTiOns in THis symMetRy cLass are EliminaTEd.

VAlUE PReCedence
----------------

We end with a sPeCIAl But commoN case wHErE vARiable anD vAluE symMETry brEakiNG dO not confLict. WhEN vAlUes partItIon intO iNteRchAngeaBLe seTs, PugeT’s method Is equIValent to breakiNG symmetry by enFOrCINg VAlue PreCedence [@llcp2004; @WecaI2006]. giveN any TWo IntERchanGeablE vALuES $i$ and $j$ with $i<j$, a value  cOnStrainT ensuRes that if $i$ occUrs then the FIRSt occurrEnce OF $i$ IS before that of $j$. it is sAfe to break ROw and colUmn syMmetry wiTh  and valuE SYmmetry wIth  WheN vaLue PREcEdence consideRS VariAbLes eithEr iN a row-wiSe oR in A coLumN-wIse order. THis is a siMpLe CoNsEquEnce oF theorem 1 iN [@lLcp2004]. it FolLows tHAt it is Also sAfe tO uSe  TO brEak valuE SyMMEtry WhEn UsinG coNsTrainTs liKE deRivable From the leX-leADer mEtHoD.

Snake LEx
=========

A promising aLtErnative to FoR brEaking ROW and coluMn symmetries is [@snakelex]. THIs is alsO deRived From The lex leaDer Method, But NOw applIed to a Snake-WiSe uNFOldinG OF
X_1$ is larger than its sy mmetry $X_ 4$. T her efo re  all  sol utions in this symm etry class are elimina ted.
S u ppos e ,on th e other ha n d , $ X_ 3$  go es fi rst i n t he lex- leader con str ai nt. Consider no w the symm etr y class of s olu tions:  $ X_1 , \ldot s,X _4=1, 2,3,4$ and $X _1,\ldots ,X _ 4=4,3, 2 ,1$. Th e le x-le ader constraint e l im i nates the firs t solu ti o na s  $X _3$  is greate rthani ts symm e tr y $ X_2 $ . Suppose now  that the s e con d solu ti oni s notelimi na t ed.  Puget’s me thod  ensuresthe fi r st occu r rence o f 1 is  be for e th a tof  4.  P u get ’ smet h odtherefor eus es an  ord e r i n g on  va riab les w hich puts $X_ 4$befo r e $ X_1$.  Cons ider  n ow th e symm etrycl ass of solution s: $ X_1,\ldot s,X _4 =1, 3, 2,4$a nd $X_ 1,\ ldo ts,X_4= 4,2,3,1 $ . P ug e t ’ smethod eliminatesth e fi rst solu tion a s  4  o c curs bef or e 1  ina n y ord erin g  t hat put$X_4$b ef or e $X_1$ .And th elex -le aderc onst rainteliminat es th e  second soluti o n as $X_3$ is la r g er than  it s symmetry$X_2 $ . Th eref o re  al l  solu tions  i n  t h is symmetry class a re  elimi nated .

Value prec edence
--- - - - -------- --
W ee nd with a spec ial b ut commonc ase wher e var iable an d value s y m metry br eak ing  do  no t co nflict. Whenv a lues  p artitio n i nto int erc han gea ble  s ets, Puge t’s meth od  i seq uiv alent to break in g s ym met ry by enforc ing v alue  p re c ede nce [@l l cp 2 0 04;@w ec ai20 06] .Given  any two  interc hangeable  va l ues$i $and $j$  with $i<j$,avalue  con st rai nt ens u r es thatif $i$ occurs then thef irst oc cur rence  of$i$ is be for e that  of $j$. I t is s afe t obre a k  rowa n dcol um n symmetry w ith   and  v alue  symmet ry with  when valu e  pr ecedence cons ide rs v a r ia ble s  e i the ri n a r ow-wise or in a  column-wi se or der. Thisi s a  s imple c onseque nce o f  Theore m 1 in [@ llcp2004] .It f o l low s that itis alsosafe to u s e  to br eak v alu e symm et rywhenusingc ons train ts lik ederiva ble f ro m the le x-leader method.

Snake  Lex
= ===== === 

A promi sin g  al ternative  tofor breaki ngrow  andcol u mn sy mmet r ie s i s  [@sn akel e x]. Thisi sals o de rived fromt h e  le x lea der method , bu t now applied toa  snake-wise un fold i n g o f
X_1$ is_larger than_its symmetry $X_4$. Therefore_all solutions_in_this symmetry_class_are eliminated.

Suppose, on_the other hand,_$X_3$ goes first in_the lex-leader constraint._Consider_now the symmetry class of solutions: $X_1,\ldots,X_4=1,2,3,4$ and $X_1,\ldots,X_4=4,3,2,1$. The lex-leader constraint eliminates the_first_solution as_$X_3$_is_greater than its symmetry $X_2$._Suppose now that the second_solution is_not eliminated. Puget’s method ensures the first occurrence_of_1 is before_that of 4. Puget’s method therefore uses an ordering_on variables which puts $X_4$ before_$X_1$. Consider now_the_symmetry_class of solutions: $X_1,\ldots,X_4=1,3,2,4$_and $X_1,\ldots,X_4=4,2,3,1$. Puget’s method eliminates the_first solution as 4 occurs before_1 in any ordering that put $X_4$_before $X_1$. And the lex-leader constraint_eliminates the second solution as_$X_3$ is_larger than its symmetry $X_2$._Therefore all solutions_in this_symmetry class are_eliminated.

Value precedence
----------------

We end with a special_but common case_where variable and value symmetry breaking_do_not conflict. When_values_partition_into interchangeable_sets, Puget’s method_is_equivalent to_breaking_symmetry by enforcing value precedence [@llcp2004;_@wecai2006]._Given any two interchangeable values $i$ and_$j$ with $i<j$, a_value_ constraint ensures that if_$i$ occurs then the first_occurrence of $i$ is before that_of $j$._It is_safe to break row and column symmetry with  and value symmetry_with  when value precedence considers variables_either in a row-wise_or in_a_column-wise order. This_is_a simple_consequence of Theorem 1 in [@llcp2004]. It_follows that_it is also safe to use_ to break value symmetry_when_using constraints like derivable from the_lex-leader method.

Snake Lex
=========

A promising alternative to_for breaking row and column_symmetries_is_[@snakelex]. This is also derived_from the lex leader method, but_now applied to_a snake-wise unfolding of