A Bad Example for Jain's Iterative Rounding Theorem for the Cover Small Cuts Problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jain's iterative rounding theorem is a well-known result in the area of approximation algorithms and, more broadly, in combinatorial optimization. The theorem asserts that LP relaxations of several problems in network design and combinatorial optimization have the following key property: for every basic solution $x$ there exists a variable $x_e$ that has value at least a constant (e.g., $x_e\geq\frac12$). We construct an example showing that this property fails to hold for the Cover Small Cuts problem. In this problem, we are given an undirected, capacitated graph $G=(V,E),u$ and a threshold value $λ$, as well as a set of links $L$ with end-nodes in $V$ and a non-negative cost for each link $\ell\in L$; the goal is to find a minimum-cost set of links such that each non-trivial cut of capacity less than $λ$ is covered by a link. This indicates that the polyhedron of feasible solutions to the LP relaxation (of Cover Small Cuts) differs in an essential way from the polyhedrons associated with several problems in combinatorial optimization. Moreover, our example shows that a direct application of Jain's iterative rounding algorithm does not give an $O(1)$ approximation algorithm for Cover Small Cuts. We mention that Bansal et al. (Algorithmica 2024) present an $O(1)$ approximation algorithm for Cover Small Cuts based on the primal-dual method of Williamson et al. (Combinatorica 1995).
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".