A New Algorithm Based on Colouring Arguments for Identifying Impossible Polyomino Tiling Problems
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
Checkerboard colouring arguments for proving that a given collection of polyominoes cannot tile a finite target region of the plane are well-known and typically applied on a case-by-case basis. In this article, we give a systematic mathematical treatment of such colouring arguments, based on the concept of a parity violation, which arises from the mismatch between the colouring of the tiles and the colouring of the target region. Identifying parity violations is a combinatorial problem related to the subset sum problem. We convert the combinatorial problem into linear Diophantine equations and give necessary and sufficient conditions for a parity violation. The linear Diophantine equation approach leads to an algorithm implemented in MATLAB for finding all possible parity violations of large tiling problems, and is the main contribution of this article. Numerical examples illustrate the effectiveness of our algorithm. The collection of MATLAB programs, POLYOMINO_PARITY (v2.0.0) is freely available for download.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it