Better balance by being biased: A 0.8776-approximation for max bisection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently Raghavendra and Tan (SODA 2012) gave a 0.85-approximation algorithm for the Max Bisection problem. We improve their algorithm to a 0.8776-approximation. As Max Bisection is hard to approximate within αGW+ ≈ 0.8786 under the Unique Games Conjecture (UGC), our algorithm is nearly optimal. We conjecture that Max Bisection is approximable within αGW −, i.e., that the bisection constraint (essentially) does not make Max Cut harder. We also obtain an optimal algorithm (assuming the UGC) for the analogous variant of Max 2-Sat. Our approximation ratio for this problem exactly matches the optimal approximation ratio for Max 2-Sat, i.e., αLLZ + ≈ 0.9401, showing that the bisection constraint does not make Max 2-Sat harder. This improves on a 0.93-approximation for this problem due to Raghavendra and Tan. 1 ar
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.013 |
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".