MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306681017 · doi:10.1609/aiide.v18i1.21950

Tiered State Expansion in Optimization Crosswords

2022· article· en· W4306681017 on OpenAlexafffund
Adi Botea, Vadim Bulitko

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCompute Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceConstraint (computer-aided design)Set (abstract data type)State (computer science)Domain (mathematical analysis)Mathematical optimizationAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crosswords puzzles continue to be a popular form of entertainment. In Artificial Intelligence (AI), crosswords can be represented as a constraint problem, and attacked with a combinatorial search algorithm. In combinatorial search, the branching factor can play a crucial role on the search space size and thus on the search effort. We introduce tiered state expansion, a completeness-preserving technique to reduce the branching factor. In problems where the successors of a state correspond to the values in the domain of a state variable selected for instantiation, the domain is partitioned into two subsets called tiers. The instantiation of the two tiers is performed at different times, with tier 1 first and tier 2 in a subsequent state. Before a tier-2 instantiation occurs, its set of applicable values can shrink substantially due to constraint propagation, with a corresponding reduction of the branching factor. We apply tiered state expansion to a constraint optimization problem modeled on the Romanian Crosswords Competition, empirically demonstrating a substantial improvement. Tiered state expansion allows finding a full solution, with an average CPU time of up to 1.2 minutes, to many puzzles that would otherwise time out after 4 hours.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital EntertainmentSame topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207