Proximity and Flatness Bounds for Linear Integer Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper deals with linear integer optimization. We develop a technique that can be applied to provide improved upper bounds for two important questions in linear integer optimization. Given an optimal vertex solution for the linear relaxation, how far away is the nearest optimal integer solution (if one exists; proximity bounds)? If a polyhedron contains no integer point, what is the smallest number of integer parallel hyperplanes defined by an integral, nonzero, normal vector that intersect the polyhedron (flatness bounds)? This paper presents a link between these two questions by refining a proof technique that has been recently introduced by the authors. A key technical lemma underlying our technique concerns the areas of certain convex polygons in the plane; if a polygon [Formula: see text] satisfies [Formula: see text], where τ denotes [Formula: see text] counterclockwise rotation and [Formula: see text] denotes the polar of K, then the area of [Formula: see text] is at least three. Funding: J. Paat was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [Grant RGPIN-2021-02475]. R. Weismantel was supported by the Einstein Stiftung Berlin.
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 | 0.007 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".