The Ramachandra-Natarajan Pairwise Independent Correlation Gap Conjecture
Everything below was recorded by a tool. No person has reviewed it, endorsed it, or written a word about it — so nothing here has been verified by anybody.
Statement
Ramachandra and Natarajan conjectured a bound on the pairwise independent correlation gap in their 2025 Operations Research Letters paper. An explicit counterexample refutes it.
Context
A conjecture the same authors published in 2025; recent and narrow, but explicitly stated in the literature.
People
Projects
Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.
Interest
Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.
Attempts
No person has examined this. There is 1 attempt here and 1 machine check recorded against it. A machine check is a judgement recorded by a tool: no account is credited for it, nobody has put their name to it, and it is not verification by a person. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.
The abstract credits the counterexample to GPT-5.5 Pro in its first sentence. The authors add that earlier attempts with free tiers of ChatGPT and Claude made no progress, which is a useful data point on where the capability threshold sat. They are refuting their own conjecture.
Reviews
0 human reviews · 1 machine checkNo person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.
Machine check · not human verification
machine: partially checkedscope Lean formalization of the core argument; statement correspondence not independently audited
The refutation is an explicit counterexample, so it is a finite check. Short arXiv note, not peer-reviewed.
A Lean 4 / Mathlib formalization of the counterexample was contributed in August 2026 by its author, produced with Codex. Curator source audit: all 579 lines read, with no sorry, admit, native_decide, unsafe declaration, user-declared axiom, implemented_by or partial def anywhere; finite checks go through kernel decide and rational identities through norm_num, and Mathlib is pinned to an exact revision on toolchain v4.33.0-rc2. The curator has not compiled it, and it is the work of the same person who reported the result, so it is not third-party corroboration.
What the formalization does and does not settle is worth stating exactly. Its final theorem is a seven-part conjunction certifying the witness and its bounds: the three-atom distribution attains the target marginals with expected coverage 4, no distribution exceeds 4, the product distribution is pairwise feasible, every pairwise-feasible distribution is bounded by , and . Both bounds are universally quantified rather than spot-checked. What the file never states is the Ramachandra-Natarajan conjecture itself, so the step from this instance to the conjecture being refuted stays informal and rests on the conjectured bound really being . That is the difference between a kernel-checked artifact and an audited claim, and why this sits on the unaudited Lean rung.
No ProbXiv account is credited for this check. Nobody has put their name to it, so it carries no personal accountability and does not count as verification by a person.
Endorsements
0 endorsementsNo one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.
Discussion of this attempt
no comments
Discussion
Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.
Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.