Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 26 references

ROS: A GNN-based Relax-Optimize-and-Sample Framework for Max-k-Cut Problems

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes the ROS framework, which solves weighted Max-k-Cut by relaxing one-hot labels to a probability simplex, optimizing with a GNN, and sampling back under an expectation-preservation guarantee.

desk verdict A solid engineering paper with correct but modest theory, undermined by an abstract overclaim that its own tables contradict. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05146 v2 pith:FTFDJQJB submitted 2024-12-06 math.OC

Yeqing Qiu , Ye Xue , Akang Wang , Yiheng Wang , Qingjiang Shi , Zhi-Quan Luo This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OC MSC 90C2790C3568T0790C26
keywords Max-k-Cutprobabilitysimplexrelaxationgraphneuralnetworksrandomsamplingcombinatorialoptimizationsignededgeweightstransferlearninglarge-scale
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Max-k-Cut asks to split a graph's vertices into k parts so that the total weight of edges crossing different parts is as large as possible; with arbitrary signed weights it generalizes Max-Cut and is NP-complete. This paper proposes the Relax-Optimize-and-Sample (ROS) framework, which replaces each node's one-hot choice with a probability distribution over the k labels, trains a graph neural network on the resulting continuous objective, and then samples each node's label from its learned distribution, keeping the best cut found. The authors try to establish that this continuous-to-discrete mapping is faithful: at a global optimum of the relaxed problem the objective is constant across an entire induced neighborhood, and the sampling step is unbiased in expectation, so solving the relaxation does not silently change the cut value. They report that the resulting solver handles weighted instances with up to 20,000 nodes in a few seconds and generalizes across graph types, which would make it a practical alternative to semidefinite-programming, heuristic, and earlier learning-based methods.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the induced neighborhood $N(X)$ of a matrix $X$ in the probability simplex: the set of all feasible matrices whose non-zero support is contained in that of $X$. Theorem 3.2 establishes that at a global optimum $X^{*}$ of the relaxed problem, the objective is flat on $N(X^{*})$, which is what makes a fractional optimum convertible to an integer cut without objective loss. The companion random sampling algorithm draws each column independently from the categorical distribution given by the relaxed matrix; Theorem 3.3 proves this step is unbiased. The practical engine is a two-layer GNN with edge-weight-aware aggregation, trained with a pretrain-plus-finetune scheme that warm-starts each instance from a model pretrained on small random regular graphs and transfers across graph sizes and types.

What would settle it

On small graphs (a few dozen nodes) with arbitrary signed edge weights, compute the true maximum cut value by exhaustive enumeration and also compute the global optimum of the relaxed simplex problem with a dense global solver; then run ROS from several random initializations. If the fine-tuned GNN's relaxed objective value is ever strictly below that global optimum, or if the best sampled cut fails to reach the true integer optimum on an instance where the relaxation optimum equals it, the chain of consistency guarantees would not apply to the solutions ROS actually produces.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a consistency theorem for a naive-looking relaxation. Writing the Max-k-Cut objective as $f(X;W) = \mathrm{Tr}(XWX^{\top})$ over matrices whose columns are one-hot vectors, the authors relax the feasible set to the Cartesian product of k-dimensional probability simplices and study the induced neighborhood $N(X^{*})$ of a global optimum $X^{*}$: all matrices that keep the same zero-pattern of non-zero entries. Theorem 3.2 shows the relaxed objective is constant on $N(X^{*})$, so a fractional global optimum contains integer solutions with exactly the same objective value; Theorem 3.3 shows that independently sampling each column of any $X$ from its categorical distribution gives $E_{\hat X}[f(\hat X;W)] = f(X;W)$. Together these results say the relaxation and the sampling step do not introduce a gap in objective value, provided the relaxed problem is solved to global optimality. The paper pairs this with a GNN parametrization and a pretrain-plus-finetune strategy, and reports cut values and runtimes showing that this recipe scales to 20,000-node graphs in seconds across random regular graphs, Gset, COLOR, and Bitcoin-OTC instances.

Load-bearing premise

The practical claims stand on the unproven assumption that the GNN optimizer, after pretraining and fine-tuning, finds a relaxed solution close enough to a global optimum of the non-convex simplex problem that the flat-basin and unbiased-sampling theorems still deliver competitive cuts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Weighted Max-k-Cut instances with up to 20,000 nodes can be solved in seconds on a single GPU, roughly ten times faster than the mirror-descent baseline and about one hundredth of PI-GNN's reported time on the same cases.
  • Because the relaxation lives on a probability simplex, the same pipeline handles any number of partitions k and arbitrary signed edge weights, which QUBO-based methods (k=2 only) and the unweighted-only ANYCSP baseline cannot do.
  • Pre-training on small random regular graphs transfers to larger and structurally different graph families, cutting fine-tuning time by roughly 40% on the Gset instances while keeping cut values close to those of the no-pretraining variant.
  • The sampling step is cheap and stable: cut values stabilize after about five sampling rounds and remain essentially unchanged through the 100 trials used in the experiments, so best-of-T sampling adds only milliseconds even at 20,000 nodes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: Because Theorem 3.3 only fixes the mean of the sampled cut value, variance-reduction schemes—such as sampling labels in a graph-aware order or conditioning on previously sampled nodes—should improve the best-of-T cut without changing the expectation; the paper does not test this.
  • Editorial inference: The real bottleneck is the GNN's ability to solve the non-convex relaxation, not the relaxation or sampling step itself; a stronger classical optimizer on the same simplex would reveal how much of ROS's reported advantage comes from the GNN rather than from the relaxation.
  • Editorial inference: If flat-basin behavior extends to near-global optima or to other objectives, the relax-optimize-sample recipe could carry over to related graph partitioning problems such as Min-k-Cut or balanced partitioning; the paper only gestures at this as future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces ROS, a three-stage heuristic for weighted Max-k-Cut: relax the one-hot assignment to a product of probability simplices, optimize the resulting non-convex objective Tr(XWX^T) with a GNN using a pre-train-plus-fine-tune protocol, and finally map the continuous solution to a discrete cut by independent categorical sampling per node, repeated T times. The theoretical component consists of Theorem 3.2, which states that a global optimum of the relaxation is flat on its support face, so that all integer points in that face have the same objective value, and Theorem 3.3, which states that the random sampling map preserves the objective value in expectation. Experiments are reported on random regular graphs, the Gset benchmark, COLOR graphs, and Bitcoin-OTC, with runtimes of a few seconds for instances up to 20,000 nodes. The abstract and introduction claim that ROS outperforms state-of-the-art algorithms.

Significance. If the efficiency claims hold, ROS is a useful scalable heuristic for weighted Max-k-Cut, and the two theorems give a clean consistency statement for the relaxation-sampling pair: Theorem 3.2 is a correct multi-affine support-containment argument, and Theorem 3.3 is a direct expectation calculation. The paper ships a code link, reports ablations for sampling trials and pre-training, and covers a broad set of benchmarks. However, the headline 'outperforming state-of-the-art' claim is contradicted by the paper's own unweighted Gset tables, and the theoretical guarantees require a global optimum of an NP-hard non-convex problem that the GNN optimizer is not guaranteed to deliver. These issues make the contribution sound in its narrow theoretical statements but over-claimed in its central practical message.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §4.2.2; Appendix D, Tables 6 and 7] The claim that ROS 'outperforms state-of-the-art algorithms' is contradicted by the paper's own experiments on the standard unweighted Gset benchmark. In Table 6, MOH and LPI achieve higher cut values than ROS on essentially every instance, for example G1 (MOH/LPI 11624 vs. ROS 11395), G22 (13359 vs. 13007), and G70 (9544/9594 vs. 8916). In Table 7 for k=3, MOH again dominates, for example G1 (15165 vs. 14961) and G6 (2632 vs. 2361). The legitimate claim from these tables is that ROS is much faster than MOH and LPI, not that it obtains better solutions. The abstract and Section 1's 'Superior Performance' bullet should be revised to state the actual trade-off, for example 'competitive quality at a fraction of the runtime' or 'outperforming state-of-the-art algorithms on weighted instances while being orders of magnitude faster on unweighted instances.' As written, the central claim of the paper is not supported by its own evidence.
  2. [Theorem 3.2 and Section 3.3 (Q1)] The theoretical guarantee in Theorem 3.2 applies only to a globally optimal solution X* of the relaxed problem P, which the paper itself notes is NP-hard to solve (Q1). The actual pipeline replaces global optimization with Adam-based training of a GNN, and Section 3.3 provides no convergence guarantee, no approximation guarantee, and no bound on the distance between the GNN output and a global optimum. Consequently, the consistency results do not apply to the solution produced by the method, and Theorem 3.3 only states that sampling preserves the objective value of whatever continuous point the GNN found. To make the practical claim load-bearing, the authors should provide evidence that the GNN solutions are close to global optima of P, for example by comparing f(H_Phi^(L); W) against exact or SDP-based bounds on small instances, or against the values obtained by running a global/local optimizer from many restarts. Without this, the framework's practical effectiveness rests on an unverified assumption.
  3. [§4.2.2 and §4.3] The comparison framework mixes solution quality and runtime without a clear quality-time trade-off analysis. Tables 6 and 7 show that MOH and LPI are allowed thousands of seconds on large instances, while ANYCSP is capped at its default 180-second limit; ROS runs in seconds. A reader cannot tell from the current tables whether ROS would remain competitive if the baselines were given the same short time budget, or whether the 'outperforming' claim is purely a runtime claim. The authors should either report time-limited comparisons (e.g., best solution within 5, 30, and 180 seconds) or a Pareto plot of cut value versus time. This is especially important because the paper's own ROS-vanilla variant beats the pretrained ROS on most random-regular and weighted-Gset instances in Tables 2 and 3, so the reported quality of ROS is not even the best obtainable within the proposed family.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1] The same label P is used for both the discrete problem and the relaxed problem; please use distinct labels such as P_discrete and P_relaxed to avoid confusion in the statement of Theorem 3.2 and the surrounding discussion.
  2. [Appendix C, Eq. (6)] The expression '/BD (X~·i = X~·j)' appears to be a rendering artifact for an indicator function; please replace it with the standard indicator notation.
  3. [Table 5] Several entries in Table 5 contain the string '/enc-37' (and '/enc-33'), which appears to be a PDF encoding artifact; the table should be regenerated with correct symbols.
  4. [Figure 2] Figure 2 contains label typos: 'Gene(i' in panel (a), 'ROS- anilla' in panel (b), and 'Ti e (s)' in panel (c). These should be corrected.
  5. [References] The COLOR dataset reference is listed as 'Micheal, T.'; the correct spelling is 'Michael'. Also, the Gset reference is formatted as 'Y e, Y .' with stray spacing and should be 'Ye, Y.'
  6. [§4.1] The sentence 'The ROS model is pre-training using Adam' should be 'The ROS model is pre-trained using Adam'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the relax-and-sample theorems are self-contained derivations from the problem definition, and the abstract's overstatement about outperforming state-of-the-art baselines is an empirical correctness issue, not a circularity issue.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 3.2 is proved from the definition of the simplex relaxation and the first-order optimality of a global minimizer of a multi-affine objective; the cited Carlson–Nemhauser result is an external, non-author result and is not used to define the conclusion. Theorem 3.3 is a direct expectation calculation: because Algorithm 1 draws each column independently from the categorical distribution with probabilities given by the relaxed matrix X, E[f(hatX;W)] = f(X;W) follows from E[hatX]=X and the bilinearity of f with zero diagonal. This is an unbiasedness identity, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and it does not assume the equality it proves. The GNN 'pre-train + fine-tune' step is an optimizer for the same objective f on the target instance, so the reported cut values are optimization outcomes against an external benchmark objective, not in-sample statistical predictions. No load-bearing self-citations appear: the architectures and standard facts cited (Morris et al.; Cai et al.; Carlson & Nemhauser) are independent of the present authors. The abstract's claim of outperforming state-of-the-art algorithms is undermined by the paper's own Tables 6 and 7, where MOH and LPI beat ROS on most unweighted Gset instances; however, that is a correctness and empirical-validity problem, which is outside the circularity definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All theoretical results are derived from the stated problem formulation and standard probability. The practical performance depends on manually selected hyperparameters (network size, learning rate, early stopping, number of samples) and on the empirical assumption that the pre-trained GNN generalizes across graph sizes and types. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • GNN layers L = 2
    Chosen by hand; deeper networks were not evaluated. Affects expressiveness and runtime.
  • Hidden dimension = 100
    Chosen by hand; no ablation reported for this value in the main text.
  • Learning rate = 1e-2
    Fixed for both pre-training and fine-tuning; standard Adam default choice.
  • Early stopping patience = 100
    Chosen by hand; tolerance 1e-2.
  • Sampling trials T = 100
    Number of times Algorithm 1 is executed; the best-of-T result is reported. Ablations show cut values stabilize near T=5.
  • Pre-training dataset size = 500 graphs per degree (3,5,7-regular, N=100)
    The composition of the pre-training set is an arbitrary choice; it affects transfer performance.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The graph is undirected with symmetric weight matrix W and zero diagonal.
    Used in the problem formulation (Section 2.1); signed weights allowed.
  • domain assumption The GNN output after softmax lies in the probability simplex, so the relaxed feasibility is enforced by construction.
    Section 3.3; this is the design of the parametrization.
  • ad hoc to paper Global optimality of the relaxed problem is required for Theorem 3.2 and for the equality of integer and relaxed optimum values.
    Section 3.1 and Appendix B; the practical optimizer is not proven to reach global optimality.
  • standard math Independence of column samples in Algorithm 1.
    Needed for Theorem 3.3's product of probabilities; true by the definition of categorical sampling.
  • domain assumption The pre-trained GNN generalizes across graph sizes and types for fine-tuning.
    Empirical observation from Figure 3; no theoretical basis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ROS: A GNN-based Relax-Optimize-and-Sample Framework for Max-k-Cut Problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FTFDJQJB

@misc{pith2026241205146,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ROS: A GNN-based Relax-Optimize-and-Sample Framework for Max-k-Cut Problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FTFDJQJB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05146}
}
read the original abstract

The Max-k-Cut problem is a fundamental combinatorial optimization challenge that generalizes the classic NP-complete Max-Cut problem. While relaxation techniques are commonly employed to tackle Max-k-Cut, they often lack guarantees of equivalence between the solutions of the original problem and its relaxation. To address this issue, we introduce the Relax-Optimize-and-Sample (ROS) framework. In particular, we begin by relaxing the discrete constraints to the continuous probability simplex form. Next, we pre-train and fine-tune a graph neural network model to efficiently optimize the relaxed problem. Subsequently, we propose a sampling-based construction algorithm to map the continuous solution back to a high-quality Max-k-Cut solution. By integrating geometric landscape analysis with statistical theory, we establish the consistency of function values between the continuous solution and its mapped counterpart. Extensive experimental results on random regular graphs and the Gset benchmark demonstrate that the proposed ROS framework effectively scales to large instances with up to 20000 nodes in just a few seconds, outperforming state-of-the-art algorithms. Furthermore, ROS exhibits strong generalization capabilities across both in-distribution and out-of-distribution instances, underscoring its effectiveness for large-scale optimization tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05146 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Relax-Optimize-and-Sample framework. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The ratio of computational time and cut value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The computational time comparison of Max- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The computational time comparison of Max- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    1 967 1.7 G20 800 4672 928 4.5 589 576.8 977 17.0 861 180.1 1122 13.3 1006 2.2 993 1.8 G21 800 4667 936 4.9 612 576.3 984 17.5 895 180.1 1109 55.8 1011 2.2 975 1.5 G22 2000 19990 16402 15.2 N/A N/A 16599 135.5 17098 180.1 1716 7 28.5 16790 3.3 16601 2.2 G23 2000 19990 16422 15.0 N/A N/A 16626 135.6 17049 180.1 1716 8 45.1 16819 3.9 16702 2.1 G24 2000 1999...

    work page 2000

  2. [3]

    4 8893 1.4 9422 1.5 G38 2000 11779 9629 14.0 N/A N/A 9775 142.3 9980 180.1 10040 11 6.6 9489 2.5 9370 1.5 G39 2000 11778 2368 13.4 N/A N/A 2600 132.8 2497 180.1 2903 9.0 2621 2.5 2557 2.2 G40 2000 11766 2315 13.3 N/A N/A 2568 131.2 2428 8.6 2870 82.8 2 474 2 2524 2.4 G41 2000 11785 2386 12.7 N/A N/A 2606 129.9 2416 8.4 2887 87.7 2 521 3.2 2584 2.5 G42 200...

    work page 2000

  3. [6]

    A Continuous Relaxation for Discrete Bayesian Optimization

    Michael, R., Bartels, S., González-Duque, M., Zainchkovskyy, Y ., Frellsen, J., Hauberg, S., and Boomsma, W . A continuous relaxation for discrete bayesian optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.17452,

    work page Pith review arXiv

  4. [11]

    Lemma B.3

    We then have ∑ l∈K(X⋆ ·i) Xli + Xji ≤ k∑ l=1 Xli = 1, 12 ROS: A GNN-based Relax-Optimize-and-Sample Framework for Max-k-Cut Problems which leads to ∑ l∈K(X⋆ ·i) Xli ≤ 1 − Xji < 1, contradicting with the fact that X·i ∈ ~N (X ⋆ ·i). Lemma B.3. Let X ⋆ be a globally optimal solution to P, then f (X; W ) = f (X ⋆; W ), where X has only the ith column X·i ∈ ~...

    work page 1991

  5. [14]

    6 13096 196.7 13297 180.1 13344 433.8 13342 150 13048 2.9 1293 6 1.9 G24 2000 19990 N/A N/A 12721 10.0 11606 214.5 N/A N/A 13002

    work page 2000

  6. [15]

    0 13096 349.2 13284 180.1 13337 777.9 13337 234 13035 1.9 1293 3 2.4 G25 2000 19990 N/A N/A 12725 11.7 12233 214.3 N/A N/A 12968 102 .6 13146 202.6 13279 180.1 13340 442.5 13340 258 13040 2 12947 1.9 G26 2000 19990 N/A N/A 12725 10.8 12141 217.2 N/A N/A 12966

    work page 2000

  7. [26]

    9 568 180.1 582 0.9 582 23 518 1.9 524 1.5 G14 800 4694 2942 1716.6 2930 3.1 2484 211.5 2855 564.2 2985 11 .1 2807 23.4 3036 180.1 3064 251.3 3064 119 2932 1.5 2953 1.8 G15 800 4661 N/A N/A 2932 3.1 2416 213.0 2836 547.7 2966 11.1 27 41 26.2 3014 180.1 3050 52.2 3050 80 2920 1.8 2871 1.4 G16 800 4672 N/A N/A 2937 3.8 2604 212.9 2848 541.3 2987 14.3 27 57 ...

    work page 2000

  8. [27]

    Cut V alue(Table 12, Table 14): The cut values stabilize after approxi mately 5 sampling iterations, demonstrating strong performance without requiring extensive sampling. 20 ROS: A GNN-based Relax-Optimize-and-Sample Framework for Max-k-Cut Problems Table 9: Cut value comparison of Max- k-Cut problems on weighted Gset instances with perturbation ratio [0...

    work page 1903

Show all 26 references
  1. [38]

    9 3507 3 3414 2.1 G29 2000 19990 3324 16.0 N/A N/A 3582 136.2 3035 180.1 4106

    2000

  2. [53]

    2 3517 1.7 3532 2 G28 2000 19990 3198 16.1 N/A N/A 3433 136.4 2778 180.1 3973

    2000

  3. [68]

    2 3634 3.4 3596 2 G30 2000 19990 3320 16.2 N/A N/A 3578 133.6 3032 180.1 4119 150 .4 3656 3.1 3654 3.4 G31 2000 19990 3243 17.0 N/A N/A 3439 131.0 2881 180.1 4003 124 .7 3596 3 3525 2.5 G32 2000 4000 1342 11.1 N/A N/A 1545 129.3 1590 180.1 1653

    2000

  4. [95]

    6 13169 198.4 13280 180.1 13359 352.4 13359 413 13028 2.6 1300 7 2.7 G23 2000 19990 N/A N/A 12688 10.2 12314 211.7 N/A N/A 12958

    2000

  5. [96]

    Instance |V| |E| GW MD PI-GNN Genetic BQP ECO-DQN ANYCSP MOH LPI ROS-vanilla R OS Obj

    9 13126 201.4 13253 180.1 13328 535.1 13328 291 13054 2.5 1295 4 3.5 G27 2000 19990 N/A N/A 2632 11.2 2509 216.3 N/A N/A 3062 98.9 32 12 200.2 3300 180.1 3341 42.3 3341 152 2993 2.8 2971 2.1 G28 2000 19990 N/A N/A 2762 11.2 2563 214.9 N/A N/A 2963 96.8 31 60 201.1 3265 180.1 3...

    2000

  6. [160]

    Instance |V| |E| MD Genetic BQP ANYCSP MOH ROS-vanilla ROS Obj

    1 1488 2.5 1482 1.7 G33 2000 4000 1284 10.7 N/A N/A 1517 126.2 1550 180.1 1625 62.6 1449 2.5 1454 2 G34 2000 4000 1292 10.9 N/A N/A 1499 126.0 1525 180.1 1607 88.9 1418 2.4 1435 1.7 G35 2000 11778 9644 14.2 N/A N/A 9816 138.1 9968 180.1 10046 66 .2 9225 2 9536 1.7 18 ROS: A GN...

    2000

  7. [282]

    0 2246 2.8 2185 2.2 G10 800 19176 1961 7.5 1266 593.3 2055 18.2 919 180.1 2407

    1961

  8. [307]

    3 2436 2.8 2361 1.8 G7 800 19176 2017 8.9 1260 589.9 2081 16.6 932 180.1 2409 381.0 2188 2.1 2188 2.4 G8 800 19176 1938 7.7 1252 589.7 2096 19.3 1007 180.1 2428

    2017

  9. [456]

    5 2237 2.8 2171 2.1 G9 800 19176 2031 8.2 1326 604.4 2099 16.5 1164 180.1 2478

  10. [1972]

    Khalil, E., Dai, H., Zhang, Y ., Dilkina, B., and Song, L

    ISBN 978-1-4684-2001-2. Khalil, E., Dai, H., Zhang, Y ., Dilkina, B., and Song, L. Learning combinatorial optimization algorithms over graphs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume

    2001

  11. [1995]

    However, t heir reliance on large-scale semidefinite programming limi ts practical scalability and makes them less effective on mode rn large-scale instances

    for Max-C ut and its k-way extension (Frieze & Jerrum, 1997), of- fer polynomial-time approximation guarantees. However, t heir reliance on large-scale semidefinite programming limi ts practical scalability and makes them less effective on mode rn large-scale instances. Non-con...

    1997

  12. [2002]

    These methods often e xhibit poor objective consistency and limited generalization

    and QUBO-based re laxation (Andrade et al., 2024), provide scalable alternat ives for Max-Cut but lack theoretical guarantees for Max- k-Cut and are typically solved locally. These methods often e xhibit poor objective consistency and limited generalization. In contrast, our p...

    2024

  13. [2016]

    Data clustering and visualization with recursive goemans-williamson maxcut algorithm

    Ly, A., Sawhney, R., and Chugunova, M. Data clustering and visualization with recursive goemans-williamson maxcut algorithm. In 2023 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), pp. 496–500. IEEE,

    2023

  14. [2017]

    S., and Falout- sos, C

    Kumar, S., Spezzano, F., Subrahmanian, V . S., and Falout- sos, C. Edge weight prediction in weighted signed net- works. In 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) , pp. 221–230,

    2016

  15. [2019]

    and Kuhnle, A

    Nath, A. and Kuhnle, A. A benchmark for maximum cut: Towards standardization of the evaluation of learned heuristics for combinatorial optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.11897,

    arXiv

  16. [2020]

    D., Parsonson, C

    Barrett, T. D., Parsonson, C. W ., and Laterre, A. Learning to solve combinatorial graph partitioning problems via efficient exploration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14105 ,

    arXiv

  17. [2023]

    Gasse, M., Bowly, S., Cappart, Q., Charfreitag, J., Charlin , L., Chételat, D., Chmiela, A., Dumouchelle, J., Gleixner, A., Kazachkov, A

    Main Track. Gasse, M., Bowly, S., Cappart, Q., Charfreitag, J., Charlin , L., Chételat, D., Chmiela, A., Dumouchelle, J., Gleixner, A., Kazachkov, A. M., et al. The machine learning for combinatorial optimization competition (ml4co): Re- sults and insights. In NeurIPS 2021 com...

    2021

  18. [2024]

    Seminal SDP-based methods, such as Goemans-Williamson (Goemans & Williamson,

    O(N ) /enc-37 /enc-37 /enc-37 /enc-33 Probability Simplex Relaxation (ours) O(N × k) /enc-33 /enc-37 /enc-33 /enc-33 The Lovász extension (Bach, 2013), originally designed for submodular optimization, admits scalable convex for- mulations but does not extend naturally to gener...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.