A comparison of several enumerative algorithms for Sudoku
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sudoku is a puzzle played of an n × n grid where n is the square of a positive integer m. The most common size is n=9. The grid is partitioned into n subgrids of size m × m. The player must place exactly one number from the set N={1, …, n} in each row and each column of as well as in each subgrid. A grid is provided with some numbers already in place, called givens. In this paper, some relationships between Sudoku and several operations research problems are presented. We model the problem by means of two mathematical programming formulations. The first one consists of an integer linear programming model, while the second one is a tighter non-linear integer programming formulation. We then describe several enumerative algorithms to solve the puzzle and compare their relative efficiencies. Two basic backtracking algorithms are first described for the general Sudoku. We then solve both formulations by means of constraint programming. Computational experiments are performed to compare the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed algorithms. Our implementation of a backtracking algorithm can solve most benchmark instances of size 9 within 0.02 s, while no such instance was solved within that time by any other method. Our implementation is also much faster than an existing alternative algorithm.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".