When several pieces fit, which do you place next? Instead of one rule of thumb, carry several signals learned from strong boards and let them vote. Voting keeps the search from over-trusting any one hunch and marching into the same dead end.
Building a board one piece at a time, the hard decision is which piece to place
next when several would fit equally well. A single rule of thumb, cheapest cost
first, most-constrained cell first, tends to march the search into the same dead
end every run. A corpus prior improves
on that with one learned signal. This technique improves on it again by carrying
several learned signals at once and letting them vote, so no single hunch owns
the decision.
From the corpus of strong boards you can learn more than one thing at a time, and
the signals are cheap counts over the same board set:
Piece-in-position. How often a piece appears in a given cell across good
boards, the positional prior of the previous page.
Piece-pair adjacency. How often two particular pieces end up touching. A
neighbourliness the positional count does not see.
The 2×2 patch prior. For every little four-cell patch, a Laplace-smoothed
log-odds ratio of how often it appears in high-scoring boards versus low-scoring
ones. A patch common in strong boards and rare in weak ones scores positive; a
consensus-trap patch scores negative. This is the sharpest of the three, because
it is the only one that contrasts good against bad rather than merely counting
good.
At each step the beam scores every candidate placement by its matched-edge gain
plus a weighted sum of the three signals, and keeps the top few. A little injected
randomness stops the parallel beams collapsing onto one path.
▶Interactive: the three-signal placement voteExplore →
Loading…
This is the KEYRING
experiment, a keyring of hunches rather than one. It reached 460 in a corner
family no earlier search had cracked, which is the real payoff: because the strong
boards are known to sit in isolated basins, a signal diverse enough to reach a
new family is worth more than one that re-derives a known board.
A single learned signal has the same failure mode as a single hand-written rule:
wherever it is wrong, it is wrong every time, and it drags every beam the same way.
Three signals that were learned from different views of the corpus, position,
adjacency, and patch quality, disagree in different places, and their disagreement
is exactly the randomness that keeps the beams exploring different regions. The
patch prior carries the most weight because it alone encodes bad: it can push the
search away from a placement, not just toward one, which is the seed of the idea
that grows into anti-pattern mining.
The same caveat as every learned signal applies. The three priors are mined from a
corpus that is itself sub-perfect, so they encode the community's ceiling as much
as its wisdom, and the vote reaches the top of the search's range reliably without
lifting that range. Where that boundary sits is
its own page.