Search cost — where it appears
Named by 44 essays across 8 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
The cost is in the coincidences
How big an instance is, is what a hardness statement is about, and it is the weaker predictor of what deciding one costs. Hold the degree fixed and vary only how many of a vertex's sectors are equal: the work of deciding it rises by a factor of nearly three, against a factor of two for doubling the number of creases. The expensive instances are the ones a designer draws on a grid.
The ring is the loop
The square twist's central polygon is four creases enclosing one panel, and a lettering that gives all four the same letter has no folded state. That was established by enumerating the orderings of nine panels. It can now be read off the crease list in one pass, because the eight panels the letters send round in a circle are exactly the ring — the twist's own defining feature, contradicting itself.
The refusal that reads the list once
There are five ways of saying no to a crease pattern here, and their costs are two hundred and eighty-two, a hundred and twenty-six, a hundred and fifty-seven, thirty-nine thousand six hundred and twenty-one — and a search that is refused outright. On the largest patch the four cheap tests together do less work than one of them looks like it should, and the fifth cannot be started. A refusal that reads the crease list once is the only kind that scales.
Two refusals that refuse differently
Four of the six developable quadrilateral meshes this collection solves have no ordering of their nine panels — they must pass through themselves, and a search over every ordering proves it. On all four, the letters agree with themselves perfectly. The linear proof and the exponential search are not a fast test and a slow one: they answer different questions, and neither contains the other.
Which condition does the refusing
A search for a lettering carries five conditions: developability, Kawasaki, Maekawa, the big-little-big lemma, and the demand that the arcs the letters force have no circle in them. Run it on five tessellation patches and count what makes it take a letter back. The four everybody checks refuse nothing at all. Every single backtrack is the fifth.
Four easy patches and one that is not
Run the same search a hundred and twenty times on each of five tessellation patches, changing nothing but the order the letters are tried in. Four of them answer in between twenty-five and fifty-three steps every single time. The fifth answers in eighty-four steps at best, a hundred and sixty-six in the middle, and does not answer at all in forty-eight runs of the hundred and twenty.
Stopping is cheaper than finishing
A search whose cost varies by a factor of two hundred with nothing but the order of its guesses should not be waited out. Give up after a hundred steps, reseed and start again, and the whole job costs five hundred and twelve steps in expectation; run each attempt to twenty thousand and it costs sixteen thousand two hundred and ninety-one. Patience is thirty-two times more expensive than impatience.
Rare is not hard
Crumple a sheet deeper and the share of its labellings that agree with themselves falls from thirty-four in forty to eleven. The number of steps a search needs to find one of them does not move at all: it stays at about one per panel, with no backtracking, the whole way down. How often an answer turns up at random and how much work it takes to find one are different quantities, and a crumpled sheet is where they come apart.
The tail was named somewhere else
The search for a mountain-valley labelling of a tessellation patch costs eighty-four steps at best and does not finish at all two runs in five, and the cure is to stop and start again rather than to wait. None of that was discovered here. The distribution was described in the study of satisfiability solvers in the nineteen-nineties, the restart arithmetic is older still, and what a crease pattern contributes is one more instance.
What a grid costs in circuits
Box-pleating puts every crease on a square grid, and a square grid is the shape with the most short circuits per panel that this collection draws. On the sixteen-by-sixteen grid a designer actually works on, one mountain-valley labelling in a hundred agrees with itself. A search still finds one in two hundred and sixty-one steps.
The difficulty was in the coin
One tessellation patch, one search, one test at every node — and a cost that runs from eighty-six steps to fifteen thousand depending on nothing but the starting seed. The heavy tail is real, it was measured carefully, and it was made by a single line of the search that nobody had thought of as a choice at all.
Which choice the cost lives in
A backtracking search takes two decisions at every step — which thing to decide, and what to decide about it. The literature is almost entirely about the first. On these crease patterns the whole of the cost was in the second, and the structural improvement everybody reaches for first makes matters worse on fifty-two patterns out of eighty-seven.
The order that proves nothing exists
Twelve crease patterns with no consistent lettering at all. Proving it takes fifteen steps under one rule and half a million under another — and on three of the twelve the two rules swap places, so neither is the good one. The cost of a negative is two to the power of how many free choices sit above the contradiction.
A population nobody chose
Five crease patterns were measured over and over because somebody had drawn five. Ninety-six drawn from a stated grid of tiling, turn and pleat width say something the five could not: nine of them have no consistent lettering at all, and the phenomenon the collection had spent so long measuring belongs to the one tiling the grid leaves out.
Restarting what cannot be restarted
Stopping a search early and starting it again with a fresh seed costs five hundred and twelve steps in expectation against sixteen thousand for patience. Every number in that is right. The distribution it is right about was made by the search's own coin, and taking the coin out costs eighty — with nothing left to reseed.
The dial and the tiling that is not alike
Four of the five tilings a twist tessellation can be built on behave identically under every dial the construction has. The fifth has two kinds of vertex, and everything about it is different: it is the only one whose search has a tail, the only one whose shallow patches take minutes to draw, and the only one where a distance has to be solved rather than assumed.
A corrugation never backtracks
As a box-pleating grid goes from two divisions to sixteen, the share of random letterings that agree with themselves falls from a hundred in a hundred to one. The cost of finding one that does stays at exactly one step per panel — four, nine, sixteen, twenty-five, and two hundred and fifty-six — with not a single wrong guess anywhere in the family.
A crumple has no tail
The least structured crease pattern this collection can produce is a sheet folded at random and flattened. Its consistent letterings get rarer as it deepens — thirty-four of forty down to eleven — and finding one costs one step per panel from beginning to end, with no wrong guess anywhere. Disorder and difficulty turn out to be unrelated quantities.
A search with nothing to reorder
One search on a crease pattern costs eighty steps or fifteen thousand depending on the order it takes its decisions in. The other search on the same crease pattern costs 1,188,571 steps whatever order it is given — twelve permutations of the panels, twelve identical counts. The difference between them is one line of code that neither has and one has.
The edge is what makes it hard
Grids, crumples, leaves, corrugations and fold-and-cut patterns all give up a consistent lettering at one step per panel with no wrong guess anywhere. The one family that does not is a tessellation clipped to a square, and what separates it from the others is not disorder, not size and not irregularity. It is having a rim.
The plant's pattern is not a hard case
A hornbeam leaf packs into its bud by corrugating, and the pattern it uses gives up a consistent lettering at nine, twelve, fifteen, eighteen, twenty and twenty-four steps on nine, twelve, fifteen, eighteen, twenty and twenty-four panels. Nothing about the plant's problem is combinatorially difficult, and saying so is worth as much as finding a case that is.
The cure was named first
A heavy-tailed search runtime, the arithmetic for cutting it off and restarting, and the reason restarts work at all were established in the study of search between 1993 and 1998. This collection imported all three, and inherited with them the phenomenon they answer — which is that randomising a search's choices is what makes the tail.
What the rim was doing
One rectangle of a twist tessellation, cut out of the plane in the ordinary way, gives up a consistent lettering in forty-eight steps. Join its opposite edges so that no crease is divided and the same drawing, at the same vertices, under the same conditions, takes fifty-six thousand seven hundred and seventy-two. The edge of the paper was never the difficulty. It was the slack.
One step per panel is a table size
Four families of crease pattern search at exactly one step per panel — a grid at nine sizes, a leaf, a Miura, six crumples — and it was read as a law about patterns that fill their own sheet. It is a number: the conditions at each of their vertices admit eight labellings. Where the conditions admit four, the cost is half. Where they admit thirty, it moves again, and the same pattern at two proportions demonstrates it with everything else held still.
Six creases and the same straight line
The one family here whose vertices are degree six was said to break the arithmetic that every other family obeys, on the strength of a single pattern. Built as a family — six sizes from twenty-one panels to a hundred and nineteen — the Yoshimura is exactly as linear as a grid, with no decision ever withdrawn. What degree changes is the constant, and it changes it in both directions depending on one angle.
A knife edge nine decimals wide
Draw the Yoshimura with its rows 1.7320508 half-columns tall and each vertex admits thirty labellings and the pattern costs fifty-seven steps. Draw it at 1.7320509 and each admits eight and it costs nineteen. The number between them is √3, which is the proportion everybody draws — and below it the sectors are unequal and the lemma is still silent, because the small ones sit next to each other.
Pruning on proofs alone
A search that discards a branch it cannot prove wrong is not a search. Deciding whether a periodic pattern's layer relations really contradict themselves is far dearer than the disc's one-pass test, so the cheap test is asked first — it is sufficient, so it settles almost everything — and the expensive one runs only on what the cheap one rejects. Five of nine steps on a small cell, fifty thousand of fifty-seven on a large one.
The cost of proving something false
A search closing its whole tree is the strongest result this collection can produce, and on a glued tessellation it produces one that is wrong. What it costs to reach is three steps at one period, thirty-five at four, three thousand four hundred and fifty-five at nine, and more than two hundred thousand at sixteen — growing far faster than the cost of finding the lettering it says does not exist.
Where you cut hardly matters
Slide the same rectangle across one whole period of the same tessellation and every position gives a different patch: different creases divided, different half-panels round the edge, panel counts from forty-nine to sixty-one. The cost of lettering them runs from twenty-five steps to thirty-three. Whether a cut is made changes the answer by three orders of magnitude; where it falls changes it by a third.
The most decided vertex here
Sixteen ways to letter four creases; Maekawa allows eight; the big-little-big lemma allows four. A twist polygon's corner is one of the few vertices in this collection where the second cut applies, so it keeps four labellings where a grid, a leaf, a Miura and a crumple all keep eight — and the family the collection long called difficult turns out to be the one whose conditions decide the most.
The edge was not what made it hard
Five families of pattern searched at one step per panel and a tessellation patch did not, and the property left standing after four alternatives were killed was having a rim. Measured under a fixed letter order the patches cost between a half and two-thirds of a step per panel, at every tiling and every size — below the line rather than above it, and the rim is why.
The designer's grid is the dearest thing here
Two hundred and fifty-six panels of box-pleating grid take two hundred and fifty-six search steps to letter — exactly one per panel, at every size from two divisions to sixteen, with not one decision withdrawn. That is the most any pattern in this collection costs per panel of paper. A twist tessellation costs half of it, and a tilted corrugation a quarter.
Nothing grown was cut out of anything
A leaf's corrugation costs twelve steps on twelve panels, sixteen on sixteen, twenty on twenty, twenty-four on twenty-four — exactly one per panel at every geometry, which is the most any pattern here costs. A tessellation patch costs half that, and the reason is that somebody cut it out of something. A leaf's creases stop at the margin because the plant stopped there.
One node per panel, with the rim gone
A rectangle of repeating pattern cut out of the plane costs exactly one node of search per panel, on every family and at every size. Take the rim away and the total falls and the cost per panel rises, because the letters that were removed were the ones that could not be wrong.
Half the slack
Gluing one pair of a cell's edges removes half the free letters and costs almost nothing. Gluing the second pair removes the other half and costs three orders of magnitude. The letters go linearly and the search does not, and the reason is that the last free letter is worth more than all the others.
Which pair is glued
A cell's two cylinders have the same Euler number, the same amount of rim and the same name. On a symmetric drawing they have identical counts of letters, panels and vertices — and searching them costs twenty-four nodes one way and eighty-five the other. Half the rim is a description of the topology and not of the object.
A proof in no nodes at all
A parity refuses a sheet before any search begins. It costs one addition, it is certain, and it says nothing about why — while a search that exhausts on the same sheet costs thousands of nodes and produces a proof of the same fact. Two proofs of one thing, and the cheap one is available only where somebody has noticed the invariant.
The cost of asking the wrong sheet
A test written for a sheet with an edge, run on a sheet without one, does not fail. It exhausts — proving, at three, thirty-five and three thousand four hundred and fifty-five nodes, that no lettering exists — and the letterings it proved impossible fold, on the collection's own machinery, at every size they were tried at.
One population, four sheets
A population of patterns is a way of asking what is typical, and it has always been a population of drawings. Put the same drawings on four different sheets and the verdicts move — not because the drawings changed but because the sheet did, which means a population has two halves and only one of them was ever chosen.
What the hindsight was worth
The best restart cutoff for the one tessellation search with a heavy tail was read off a hundred and twenty measured runs, which nobody running the search could have done in advance. The universal schedule needs no such knowledge, and on the same runs it costs 3,222 nodes in expectation against 512 for the cutoff chosen by looking — a factor of 6.3, which is close to the base-two logarithm of that cutoff, as the theory of the schedule says it should be. A larger unit brings the schedule within a few per cent of the hindsight, and choosing the unit is choosing the scale the schedule was meant not to need.
A failure teaches a schedule nothing
The universal restart schedule costs 6.3 times the cutoff chosen by hindsight on the one folding search with a heavy tail, and the obvious repair is a schedule that learns its scale from the attempts it has already made. It cannot. A failed attempt costs exactly its cutoff and reports only that the run needed more, so every rule that chooses the next cutoff from its own failures writes down the same list whatever happens — a fixed schedule in disguise. On the measured runs, doubling after every failure costs at least 3.6 times the hindsight, and growing by half at least 2.4. What does come near is information from outside the run: the universal schedule given the longest search on four other patches as its unit costs 1.7 times the hindsight. The field that supplied the schedule reached the same conclusion, and answered it by watching runs from the inside.
Each drawing has its own threshold
Gluing a cell's edges was measured once, at one size, and found to cost three orders of magnitude — which cannot tell a threshold from a slope, nor say whether a cut sheet has one further out. Swept from one period to five on four tilings, every sheet starts at about a third of a node per free letter and every drawing leaves that behaviour at a size of its own: four periods on the square grid, three on the honeycomb, two on the triangular grid and two on the rhombille, where even the cut sheet crosses.
The route, not the sheet
Every cost measured for a glued sheet has been one number from one branch order, and a backtracking search's cost belongs to the pair. Asked under eight orders instead of one, a cut cell's cost barely moves — 42 to 55 nodes — while the torus over the same drawing runs from 69 to 24,636, with one order giving up entirely. The glued sheet's best order costs less than twice the cut sheet's, so most of what a single order charged to the gluing belongs to the route through it.
The cheapest route crosses later
A search for a consistent lettering has a threshold: below it the letters propagate and the cost is a third of a node per crease, above it the search backtracks and the cost explodes. The threshold was measured with one branch order. Measured with eight, the cheapest route never starts searching before the typical one, and on most sheets it starts a period or two later — so part of every threshold on the record belongs to the route. And the one cut sheet past its threshold, the rhombille's, spreads across nearly three orders of magnitude of cost, which moves the spread off the gluing and onto the threshold.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
AssignmentConstraint propagationSearchBoundaryPanelTessellationGluingPatchCorrugationInterior vertexPeriodicityCrease pattern