MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952497380 · doi:10.4230/lipics.itcs.2020.6

Local max-cut in smoothed polynomial time

2016· preprint· en· W2952497380 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2016
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBlavatnik Family FoundationIsrael Science FoundationMicrosoft Research
KeywordsMathematical proofMathematicsBounded functionPolynomialTime complexityCombinatoricsApplied mathematicsDiscrete mathematicsMathematical analysisGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1988, Johnson, Papadimitriou and Yannakakis wrote that "Practically all the empirical evidence would lead us to conclude that finding locally optimal solutions is much easier than solving NP-hard problems". Since then the empirical evidence has continued to amass, but formal proofs of this phenomenon have remained elusive. A canonical (and indeed complete) example is the local max-cut problem, for which no polynomial time method is known. In a breakthrough paper, Etscheid and Röglin proved that the smoothed complexity of local max-cut is quasi-polynomial, i.e., if arbitrary bounded weights are randomly perturbed, a local maximum can be found in $n^{O(\log n)}$ steps. In this paper we prove smoothed polynomial complexity for local max-cut, thus confirming that finding local optima for max-cut is much easier than solving it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.131 · 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