Computational study of valid inequalities for the maximum \(k\)-cut problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the maximum k-cut problem that consists in partitioning the vertex set of a graph into k subsets such that the sum of the weights of edges joining vertices in different subsets is maximized. We focus on identifying effective classes of inequalities to tighten the semidefinite programming relaxation. We carry out an experimental study of four classes of inequalities from the literature: clique, general clique, wheel and bicycle wheel. We considered 10 combinations of these classes and tested them on both dense and sparse instances for $$ k \in \{3,4,5,7\} $$ . Our computational results suggest that the bicycle wheel and wheel are the strongest inequalities for $$ k=3 $$ , and that for $$ k \in \{4,5,7\} $$ the wheel inequalities are the strongest by far. Furthermore, we observe an improvement in the performance for all choices of k when both bicycle wheel and wheel are used, at the cost of 72% more CPU time on average when compared with using only one of them.
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 | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".