Plain language

What this result means

A constant-weight code is a set of binary words with the same number of ones, kept far apart by Hamming distance. The main table is strong: direct search did not beat it. The one improvement came from a simple rule the table had not propagated, while the related doubly-constant-weight object had upper bounds but no comparable construction table.

  • The record beat is A(29,8,6) >= 131, compared with the listed 130.
  • The construction is simple: append a zero coordinate to Rosin's A(28,8,6)=131 code.
  • The 442 doubly-constant-weight values are first-recorded exact values, not beats of a lower-bound table.

Visual notes

How to read the result

Diagram showing A 28 8 6 equals 131, append zero, and A 29 8 6 at least 131 while the table listed 130.
Propagation lagThe record beat is not a mysterious search jump: A(28,8,6)=131 lifts to A(29,8,6) by appending a zero coordinate.
Horizontal bar chart of doubly-constant-weight code cells where the proven exact value is below the published upper bound.
DCW gapsThe doubly-constant-weight rows are fills, not beats of a lower-bound table. These examples are exact values below the published upper bound.

Result table

A(29,8,6) moves from 130 to at least 131; 442 doubly-constant-weight values are pinned exactly.

CellBaselineNumaroDeltaNote
A(29,8,6)130>=131+1append-0 from A(28,8,6)=131
T(2,10,2,10,6)upper bound 3525 exactfirst-recordedproven below the published upper bound
T(2,6,2,15,4)upper bound 120105 exactfirst-recordedproven below the published upper bound
T exact fillsupper bounds only442 valuesnew table404 meet upper bound; 38 below it
Main A(n,d,w) sweepBrouwer0 search beatsmatch-hardrecord is propagation only

Method

How it was found

The campaign first closed simple monotonicity relations in the constant-weight table, then used exact max-clique on the doubly-constant-weight object.

  • Checked A(n,d,w) propagation by appending constant 0 or 1 coordinates.
  • Found the single unpropagated A(29,8,6) cell.
  • Modeled doubly-constant-weight cells as maximum cliques and solved them with CP-SAT.
  • Ran a broader exact/heuristic sweep on the main table and recorded that it did not beat.

Verification

How it was checked

verify.py brute-force checks binary length, weights, distinctness, and all pairwise Hamming distances. Exactness of the DCW values rests on CP-SAT OPTIMAL status.

Scope

What is not being claimed

A(29,8,6)>=131 is best-known, not optimal. The 442 DCW values are fills for an object without prior lower-bound tables, not record beats.

References

Baseline sources

Citation

How to cite

Numaro Autoresearch Team. "Constant-weight codes: one propagation beat and exact DCW fills." Numaro Research Report NUMARO-2026-012, 2026.

@techreport{numaro2026ConstantWeightCodes,
  title = {Constant-weight codes: one propagation beat and exact DCW fills},
  author = {Numaro Autoresearch Team},
  institution = {Numaro},
  number = {NUMARO-2026-012},
  year = {2026},
  url = {https://numaro.tech/research/constant-weight-codes-2026/}
}