A Hierarchy of Subgraph Projection-Based Semidefinite Relaxations for Some NP-Hard Graph Optimization Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many important NP-hard combinatorial problems can be efficiently approximated using semidefinite programming relaxations. We propose a new hierarchy of semidefinite relaxations for classes of such problems that are based on graphs and for which the projection of the problem onto a subgraph shares the same structure as the original problem. This includes the well-studied max-cut and stable-set problems. Each level k of the proposed hierarchy consists of the basic semidefinite relaxation of the problem augmented by the constraints enforcing the structural projection condition on every k-node subgraph of the problem. This hierarchy has the distinguishing feature that all the relaxations are formulated in the space of the original semidefinite relaxation. Because the size of the relaxations increases rapidly with the number of subgraphs, we explore the possibility of adding the projection constraints only for selected subgraphs. Preliminary computational results show that the proposed hierarchy yields improved bounds when compared to the initial relaxation for benchmark instances of the max-cut and stable-set problems, and that the improved bounds result in significantly smaller enumeration trees when the relaxation is used in a branch-and-bound scheme.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".