An Exact 93-Move Solution to a Nonlocal Crystal-Exchange Puzzle

We present an optimized approach for finding minimal move sequences to solve Flood-It puzzles using A* search and compare it with approaches using SAT, Integer Programming, and Constraint Programming solvers. The performance of A* search is considerably improved by using an appropriate heuristic and sophisticated equivalences of game states to limit the search space. Each aspect is systematically evaluated, providing insights that generalize to other problems. By comparing the best variant of each approach, the A* search is the fastest in finding a minimal solution in about 75 % of the Flood-It instances tested. This result is in line with our expectation since A* specifically looks for a minimum solution. In contrast, the SAT-based approach is designed to solve the decision problem of whether a solution with a given length exists. An iterative search is required to determine a minimum solution length using a SAT-based approach. However, with increasing complexity, quantified by the minimum solution length, the SAT-based approach outperforms A*. We also compared the different approaches to the decision problem, where A* again performed best for the largest number of puzzles. Here, again, SAT supersedes A* for higher complexities, albeit with a lower crossing point.

Neural solvers are built to deduce, branch, and revise intermediate states. The Lattice Deduction Transformer (LDT) appears to do exactly that. In clue-rich Sudoku, it does not: one forward pass commits essentially the entire grid (every blank cell on standard 6x6, 94-96% on augmented 9x9), turning the iterative solver into a one-shot predictor wrapped in an exact verifier. All hard-slice failures are decided before search begins, when the first pass confidently deletes a value required by the true solution. We call this first-pass poisoning. Adding learned branching, MRV, backtracking, value exclusion, and shared nogoods (CoLT) does not change which Sudoku instances are solved; it cuts repeated invalid derivations 1,497-fold. At the frozen training budget, constraint-graph attention alone matches full-CoLT accuracy, while positional tables recover only under substantially longer training, indicating an optimization and sample-efficiency advantage rather than an absolute capacity difference. The diagnosis predicts two effective interventions. Digit-permutation augmentation raises 9x9 accuracy from below 1% to 96.5 +/- 0.3 across three training seeds on a symmetry-disjoint split. Test-time union over symmetry-transformed passes raises all three hard-slice checkpoints from 72.8-78.9% to 100% without retraining. On from-scratch graph coloring, one-shot behavior disappears and search changes accuracy. In clue-rich completion, LDT-like systems are one-shot amortized predictors rather than learned search procedures: accuracy is determined by calibration and symmetry, while search primarily removes computational waste.

Recursive reasoning models such as the Tiny Recursive Model (TRM) iteratively refine two latent states: an answer state y, decoded into the output, and a reasoning state z, which is never decoded. Many of their failures have been attributed to bad basins, regions of latent space that trap the recursion on wrong answers. Recent test-time approaches perturb y, z or both to recover these failures, but the impact of this choice on performance, test-time compute efficiency and scaling properties remains unclear. Through controlled experiments on TRM, we find that a failed trajectory carries its failure in its answer state. At equal compute, in depth and in width, resampling y recovers more failures than any perturbation of z we tested, and the performance gap widens as the test-time compute budget grows. Our approach, Gated Answer Resampling (GAR), pairs this resampling of the answer state with the model's own halting head and restarts only the puzzles that the head rejects. With at most 64 restarts per puzzle and no training or hyperparameter search, GAR takes TRM from 85.9% to 99.4% on Sudoku-Extreme and from 68.8% to 85.6% on Pencil Puzzle Bench validation. On the same checkpoints, GAR also outperforms Probabilistic TRM (PTRM), which perturbs z at each step, even when PTRM uses 42 to 197 times as much compute.