Exponential lower bounds and integrality gaps for tree-like Lovász-Schrijver procedures
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The matrix cuts of Lovász and Schrijver are methods for tightening linear relaxations of zero-one programs by the addition of new linear inequalities. We address the question of how many new inequal-ities are necessary to approximate certain combinatorial problems with strong guarantees, and to solve certain instances of Boolean satisfiability. We show that relaxations of linear programs, obtained by tightening via any subexponential-size semidefinite Lovász-Schrijver derivation tree, cannot approximate max-k-SAT to a factor better than 1+ 12k−1, max-k-XOR to a factor better than 2 − ε, nor vertex cover to a factor better than 7/6. We prove exponential size lower bounds for tree-like Lovász-Schrijver proofs of unsatisfiability for several prominent unsatisfiable CNFs, including random 3-CNF formulas, random systems of linear equations, and the Tseitin graph formulas. Furthermore, we prove that tree-like LS+ cannot polynomi-ally simulate tree-like cutting planes, and that tree-like LS+ cannot polynomially simulate unrestricted resolution. All of our size lower bounds for derivation trees are based upon connections between the size and height of the derivation tree (its rank). The primary method is a tree-size/rank trade-off for Lovász-Schrijver refutations: Small tree size implies small rank. Surprisingly, this does not hold for derivations of arbitrary linear inequalities. We show that for LS0 and LS, there are examples with polynomial-size tree-like derivations, but requiring linear rank. 1
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it