MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981781020 · doi:10.1137/18m1193657

Strict Complementarity in Semidefinite Optimization with Elliptopes Including the MaxCut SDP

2019· article· en· W2981781020 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Optimization · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematicsCombinatoricsSemidefinite programmingVertex (graph theory)Conic optimizationRegular polygonConvex optimizationDiscrete mathematicsGraphConvex setMathematical optimization

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The MaxCut approximation algorithm by Goemans and Williamson is one of the most celebrated results in semidefinite optimization, and the corresponding MaxCut semidefinite optimization problem (SDP) has many favourable properties. The feasible regions of this class of SDPs are known as elliptopes, and they have been studied extensively. One of their nicest geometric/duality properties is the fact that their vertices correspond exactly to the cuts of a graph, as proved by Laurent and Poljak in 1995. Recall that a boundary point $x$ of a convex set $\mathscr{C}$ is called a vertex of $\mathscr{C}$ if the normal cone of $\mathscr{C}$ at $x$ is full-dimensional. Semidefinite programs over elliptopes were also exploited by Goemans and Williamson and by Nesterov to develop approximation algorithms for the Maximum-2-Satisfiability problem and for nonconvex quadratic optimization problems, respectively. We study how often strict complementarity holds or fails for SDPs over elliptopes when a vertex is optimal, i.e., when the SDP relaxation is tight. While strict complementarity is known to hold when the objective function is in the interior of the normal cone at any vertex, we prove that it fails generically (in a context of Hausdorff measure and Hausdorff dimension) at the boundary of such normal cones. In this regard, SDPs over elliptopes display the nastiest behavior possible for a convex optimization problem. We also study strict complementarity with respect to two classes of objective functions. We show that, when the objective functions are sampled uniformly from a class of negative semidefinite rank-one matrices in the boundary of the normal cone at any vertex, the probability that strict complementarity holds lies in $(0,1)$. To complete our study with a spectral-graph-theory-based viewpoint of the data for the MaxCut SDP, we extend a construction due to Laurent and Poljak of weighted Laplacian matrices for which strict complementarity fails. Their construction works for complete graphs, and we extend it to cosums of graphs under some mild conditions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.285 · 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