The Refutation Gap: Certifying Both Halves of an Optimality Claim

The paper addresses the asymmetry in verifying optimality claims for synthesis pipelines, distinguishing between the upper bound (existence of a program) and the lower bound (non-existence of a smaller program). It introduces a pipeline that synthesizes minimal linear straight‑line programs over GF(2) and produces DRAT proofs for every UNSAT result, thereby closing the so‑called refutation gap for 121 previously uncertified optimality claims. The authors report that the median proof size is 1.1 MB, checking takes 1.9× the solving time, and that their verification process uncovered defects missed by code review, highlighted interface obstacles, and exposed a budget‑related audit failure.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

• safety