The Bidirected Cut Relaxation for Steiner Tree has Integrality Gap Smaller than 2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Steiner tree problem is one of the most prominent problems in network design. Given an edge-weighted undirected graph and a subset of the vertices, called terminals, the task is to compute a minimum-weight tree containing all terminals (and possibly further vertices). The best-known approximation algorithms for Steiner tree involve enumeration of a (polynomial but) very large number of candidate components and are therefore slow in practice. A promising ingredient for the design of fast and accurate approximation algorithms for Steiner tree is the bidirected cut relaxation (BCR): bidirect all edges, choose an arbitrary terminal as a root, and enforce that each cut containing some terminal but not the root has one unit of fractional edges leaving it. BCR is known to be integral in the spanning tree case [Edmonds'67], i.e., when all the vertices are terminals. For general instances, however, it was not even known whether the integrality gap of BCR is better than the integrality gap of the natural undirected relaxation, which is exactly 2. We resolve this question by proving an upper bound of 1.9988 on the integrality gap of BCR.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".