MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406771488 · doi:10.1051/itmconf/20257004025

Exploring A Better Way to Constraint Propagation Using Naked Pair

2025· article· en· W4406771488 on OpenAlexaff
Kaiqi Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueITM Web of Conferences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint (computer-aided design)Computer scienceMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sudoku is an NP-complete problem therefore developing various efficient algorithms is crucial. This paper presents an enhanced approach to solving sudoku puzzles by improving on recursive backtracking with constraint propagation and bitmask, focusing on the implementation of the naked pair technique. This research aims to add constraints to reduce the backtracking steps in solving sudoku using naked pairs, which is a technique that eliminates candidates of a cell from other cells in the same row, column or sub-grid when two cells share the same candidate sets. This research uses a dataset of 1 million sudoku puzzlers from Kaggle to evaluate the proposed solver’s performance. The solver first processes the puzzle into bitmask vectors then uses the singles and naked pairs technique to minimize the candidates, and then uses depth-first search to backtrack and solve the puzzle. As a result, the naked pair strategy slightly increases the total steps, and it significantly reduces the computation of depth-first search steps, making the solver potentially more efficient in solving difficult puzzles.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.003

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueITM Web of ConferencesSame topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207