Lift & Project Systems Performing on the Partial Vertex Cover Polytope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study integrality gap (IG) lower bounds on strong LP and SDP relaxations derived by the Sherali-Adams (SA), Lovász-Schrijver-SDP (LS_+), and Sherali-Adams-SDP (SA_+) lift-and-project (L&P) systems for the t-Partial-Vertex-Cover (t-PVC) problem, a variation of the classic Vertex-Cover problem in which only t edges need to be covered. t-PVC admits a 2-approximation using various algorithmic techniques, all relying on a natural LP relaxation. Starting from this LP relaxation, our main results assert that for every epsilon>0, level-Theta(n) LPs or SDPs derived by all known L&P systems that have been used for positive algorithmic results (but the Lasserre hierarchy) have IGs at least (1-epsilon)n/t, where n is the number of vertices of the input graph. Our lower bounds are nearly tight, in that level-n relaxations, even of the weakest systems, have integrality gap 1. As lift-and-project systems have given the best algorithms known for numerous combinatorial optimization problems, our results show that restricted yet powerful models of computation derived by many L&P systems fail to witness c-approximate solutions to t-PVC for any constant c, and for t=O(n). This is one of the very few known examples of an intractable combinatorial optimization problem for which LP-based algorithms induce a constant approximation ratio, still lift-and-project LP and SDP tightenings of the same LP have unbounded IGs. As further motivation for our results, we show that the SDP that has given the best algorithm known for t-PVC has integrality gap n/t on instances that can be solved by the level-1 LP relaxation derived by the LS system. This constitutes another rare phenomenon where (even in specific instances) a static LP outperforms an SDP that has been used for the best approximation guarantee for the problem at hand. Finally, we believe our results are of independent interest as they are among the very few known integrality gap lower bounds for LP and SDP 0-1 relaxations in which not all variables possess the same semantics in the underlying combinatorial optimization problem. Most importantly, one of our main contributions is that we make explicit of a new and simple methodology of constructing solutions to LP relaxations that almost trivially satisfy constraints derived by all SDP L&P systems known to be useful for algorithmic positive results (except the La system). The latter sheds some light as to why La tightenings seem strictly stronger than LS_+ or SA_+ tightenings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".