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 OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.091
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