Local max-cut in smoothed polynomial time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
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".