Semidefinite programming for discrete optimization and matrix completion problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Semidefinite programming (SDP) is currently one of the most active areas of research in optimization. SDP has attracted researchers from a wide variety of areas because of its theoretical and numerical elegance as well as its wide applicability. In this paper we present a survey of two major areas of application for SDP, namely discrete optimization and matrix completion problems. In the first part of this paper we present a recipe for finding SDP relaxations based on adding redundant constraints and using Lagrangian relaxation. We illustrate this with several examples. We first show that many relaxations for the max-cut problem (MC) are equivalent to both the Lagrangian and the well-known SDP relaxation. We then apply the recipe to obtain new strengthened SDP relaxations for MC as well as known SDP relaxations for several other hard discrete optimization problems. In the second part of this paper we discuss two completion problems, the positive semidefinite matrix completion problem and the Euclidean distance matrix completion problem. We present some theoretical results on the existence of such completions and then proceed to the application of SDP to find approximate completions. We conclude this paper with a new application of SDP to find approximate matrix completions for large and sparse instances of Euclidean distance matrices.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".