Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, many improvements to backtracking algorithms for solving constraint satisfaction problems have been proposed. The techniques for improving backtracking algorithms can be conveniently classified as look-ahead schemes and look-back schemes. Unfortunately, look-ahead and look-back schemes are not entirely orthogonal as it has been observed empirically that the enhancement of look-ahead techniques is sometimes counterproductive to the effects of look-back techniques. In this paper, we focus on the relationship between the two most important look-ahead techniques---using a variable ordering heuristic and maintaining a level of local consistency during the backtracking search---and the look-back technique of conflict-directed backjumping (CBJ). We show that there exists a ``perfect'' dynamic variable ordering such that CBJ becomes redundant. We also show theoretically that as the level of local consistency that is maintained in the backtracking search is increased, the less that backjumping will be an improvement. Our theoretical results partially explain why a backtracking algorithm doing more in the look-ahead phase cannot benefit more from the backjumping look-back scheme. Finally, we show empirically that adding CBJ to a backtracking algorithm that maintains generalized arc consistency (GAC), an algorithm that we refer to as GAC-CBJ, can still provide orders of magnitude speedups. Our empirical results contrast with Bessiere and Regin's conclusion (1996) that CBJ is useless to an algorithm that maintains arc consistency.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it