Bibliographic record
Abstract
Let $G$ be any $n$-vertex graph whose random walk matrix has its nontrivial eigenvalues bounded in magnitude by $1/\sqrt{\Delta}$ (for example, a random graph $G$ of average degree $\Theta(\Delta)$ typically has this property). We show that the $\exp\left(c \frac{\log n}{\log \Delta}\right)$-round Sherali--Adams linear programming hierarchy certifies that the maximum cut in such a $G$ is at most $50.1\%$ (in fact, at most $\tfrac12 + 2^{-\Omega(c)}$). For example, in random graphs with $n^{1.01}$ edges, $O(1)$ rounds suffice; in random graphs with $n \cdot \text{polylog(n)}$ edges, $n^{O(1/\log \log n)} = n^{o(1)}$ rounds suffice. Our results stand in contrast to the conventional beliefs that linear programming hierarchies perform poorly for MAX-CUT and other CSPs, and that eigenvalue/SDP methods are needed for effective refutation. Indeed, our results imply that constant-round Sherali--Adams can strongly refute random Boolean $k$-CSP instances with $n^{\lceil k/2 \rceil + \delta}$ constraints; previously this had only been done with spectral algorithms or the SOS SDP hierarchy. We also show similar results for other classical combinatorial optimization problems such as independent set, max clique, and vertex cover. ---------------- A conference version of this paper appeared in the Proceedings of the 34th Computational Complexity Conference (CCC'19).
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".