MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167508847 · doi:10.1287/moor.26.4.796.10012

When Does the Positive Semidefiniteness Constraint Help in Lifting Procedures?

2001· article· en· W2167508847 on OpenAlexaff
Michel X. Goemans, Levent Tunçel

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics of Operations Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsConstraint (computer-aided design)MathematicsLift (data mining)Integer programmingMathematical optimizationInteger (computer science)Mathematical economicsComputer scienceGeometryData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the lift-and-project procedures of Lovász and Schrijver for 0-1 integer programming problems. We prove that the procedure using the positive semidefiniteness constraint is not better than the one without it, in the worst case. Various examples are considered. We also provide geometric conditions characterizing when the positive semidefiniteness constraint does not help.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.011
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations71
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematics of Operations ResearchSame topicComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsFrench-language works237,207