Generalized cut and metric polytopes of graphs and simplicial complexes
Michel Deza, Mathieu Dutour Sikiri\'c

TL;DR
This paper explores generalized cut and metric polytopes for graphs and simplicial complexes, extending classical concepts and computing these polytopes for various graphs, including oriented and higher-dimensional cases.
Contribution
It introduces new generalized polytopes for graphs and simplicial complexes, including oriented and higher-dimensional versions, and computes these for many graphs.
Findings
Computed cut and metric polytopes for numerous graphs.
Defined new oriented and higher-dimensional polytopes.
Extended classical graph polytopes to simplicial complexes.
Abstract
Given a graph one can define the cut polytope CUTP(G) and the metric polytope METP(G) of this graph and those polytopes encode in a nice way the metric on the graph. According to Seymour's theorem, CUTP(G) = METP(G) if and only if K_5 is not a minor of G. We consider possibly extensions of this framework: a) We compute the CUTP(G) and METP(G) for many graphs. b) We define the oriented cut polytope WOMCUTP(G) and oriented multicut polytope OMCUTP(G) as well as their oriented metric version QMETP(G) and WQMETP(G). c) We define an -dimensional generalization of metric on simplicial complexes.
| Number of facets | Orbit’s | |||
| Möbius ladder | ||||
| ++ | ||||
| ++ | ||||
| + | ||||
| + | with | |||
| with | ||||
| ++ | ||||
| -= | + | |||
| Tr. Tetrahedron | ||||
| Cuboctahedron | ||||
| Dodecahedron | ||||
| Icosahedron | ||||
| Cube | ||||
| Octahedron | ||||
| Tetrahedron | ∗ |
| Number of facets (orbits) | Orbit’s | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heawood graph | ||||
| Petersen graph | ||||
| Möbius ladder | ||||
| Möbius ladder | ||||
| Möbius ladder | ||||
| ++ | ++ | |||
| ++ | (4) | |||
| = | ||||
| = | ||||
| (4) | ||||
| = | ||||
| = | ||||
| Tr.Octahedron on |
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Generalized cut and metric polytopes of graphs and simplicial complexes
Michel Deza
Michel Deza, École Normale Supérieure, Paris, Deceased
and
Mathieu Dutour Sikirić
Mathieu Dutour Sikirić, Rudjer Bosković Institute, Bijenicka 54, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia, Fax: +385-1-468-0245
Abstract.
Given a graph one can define the cut polytope and the metric polytope of this graph and those polytopes encode in a nice way the metric on the graph. According to Seymour’s theorem, if and only if is not a minor of .
We consider possibly extensions of this framework:
- (1)
We compute the and for many graphs. 2. (2)
We define the oriented cut polytope and oriented multicut polytope as well as their oriented metric version and . 3. (3)
We define an -dimensional generalization of metric on simplicial complexes.
Key words and phrases:
max-cut problem, cut polytope, metrics, graphs, cycles, quasi-metrics, hemimetrics
1. Introduction
The cut polytope [23] is a natural polytope arising in the study of the maximum cut problem [10]. The cut polytope on the complete graph has seen much study (see [23]) but the cut polytope on a graph was much less studied [20, 4, 2]. Moreover, generalizations of the cut polytope on graphs seems not to have been considered.
Given a graph , for a vertex subset , the cut semimetric is a vector (actually, a symmetric -matrix) defined as
[TABLE]
A cut polytope , respectively cut cone , are defined as the convex hull of all such semimetrics, respectively positive span of all non-zero ones among them. The dimension of and is equal to the number of edges of .
The metric cone is the set of all semimetrics on points, i.e., the functions (actually, symmetric matrices over having only zeroes on the diagonal), which satisfy all triangle inequalities . The bounding of by perimeter inequalities produces the metric polytope .
For a graph of the order , let and denote the projections of and , respectively, on the subspace indexed by the edge set of . Clearly, and are projections of, respectively, and on . It holds
[TABLE]
In Section 2 we consider the structure of those polytopes and give the description of the facets for many graphs (see Tables 1 and 2). The data file of the groups and orbits of facets of considered polytopes is available from [24].
The construction of cuts and metrics can be generalized to metrics which are not necessarily symmetric are considered in Section 3 (see also [19, 16]). The triangle inequality becomes and the perimeter inequality becomes for . We also need the inequalities . The quasi metric polytope is defined by the above inequalities and the quasi metric cone is defined by the inequalities passing by zero. The quasi metric cone and polytope are defined as projection of above two cone and polytopes. In Theorem 3 we give an inequality description of those projections.
Given an ordered partition of we defined an oriented multicut as:
[TABLE]
The convex cone of the oriented multicut is the oriented multicut cone . The convex polytope can also be defined but there are vertices besides the oriented multicuts. A smaller dimensional cone and polytope can be defined by adding the cycle equality
[TABLE]
to the cone and polytope . A multicut satisfies the cycle equality if and only if . We note the corresponding cone and . In Section 3 we consider those cones and polytopes and their facet description.
The notion of metrics can be generalized to more than points and we obtain the hemimetrics. Those were considered in [15, 14, 17, 21]. Only the notion of cones makes sense in that context. The definition of the above papers extends the triangle inequality in a direct way: It becomes a simplex inequality with the area of one side being bounded by the sums of area of the other sides. In [12] we argued that this definition was actually inadequate since it prevented right definition of hemimetric for simplicial complex. In Section 4 we give full details on what we argue is the right definition of hemimetric cone.
There is much more to be done in the fields of metric cones on graphs and simplicial complexes. Besides further studies of the existing cones and the ones defined in this paper, two other cases could be interesting. One is to extend the notion of hypermetrics cone to graphs; several approaches were considered in [18], for example projecting only on the relevant coordinates, but no general results were proved.
Another generalization that could be considered is the diversities considered in [7, 8]. Diversity cone is the set of all diversities on points, i.e., the functions satisfying if and
[TABLE]
The induced diversity metric is .
Cut diversity cone is the positive span of all cut diversities , where , which are defined, for any , by
[TABLE]
is the set of all diversities from , which are isometrically embeddable into an -diversity, i.e., one, defined on with by
[TABLE]
These two cones are extensions of the and on a complete hypergraphs and it would be nice to have a nice definition on any hypergraph.
2. Structure of cut polytopes of graphs
The cut metric defined at Equation (1) satisfies the relation . The cut polytope is defined as the convex hull of the metrics and thus has vertices.
For a given subset of we can define the switching operation by
[TABLE]
The operation on cuts is with denoting the symmetric difference (see [23] for more details). For a graph we define to be the projection of on the coordinates corresponding to the edges of the graph . If is connected then has exactly vertices. Then can be seen also as the adjacency matrix of a cut (into and ) subgraph of . The cut cone is defined by taking the convex cone generated by the metrics but it is generally not used in that section.
In fact, is the set of all -vertex semimetrics, which embed isometrically into some metric space , and rational-valued elements of correspond exactly to the -vertex semimetrics, which embed isometrically, up to a scale , into the path metric of some -cube . It shows importance of this cone in Analysis and Combinatorics. The enumeration of orbits of facets of and for was done in [31, 3, 28] for , , respectively, and in [9], completed by [20], for .
2.1. Automorphism group of cut polytopes
The symmetry group of a graph induces symmetry of . For any , the map also defines a symmetry of . Together, those form the restricted symmetry group of order . The full symmetry group may be larger. In Tables 1, 2, such cases are marked by ∗. Denote by .
For example, is if and if ([13]).
Remark 1**.**
(i) If is (), (), Möbius ladder and (), then .
(ii) If is a complete multipartite graph with parts of size , parts of size , with and all , then
(iii) Among the cases considered here, all occurrences of are: for and , i.e., for and , respectively.
(iv) If ( edges), then , while .
If (), then , while for and for .
2.2. Edge faces, -cycle faces and metric polytope
Definition 1**.**
Let be a graph.
(i) Given an edge , the edge inequality (or -cycle inequality) is
[TABLE]
(ii) Given a -cycle of , the -cycle inequality is:
[TABLE]
The edge inequalities and -cycle inequalities are valid on , since they are, clearly, valid on each cut: a cut intersects a cycle in the set of even cardinality. So, they define faces, but not necessarily facets. In fact, it holds
Theorem 1**.**
(i) The inequality is facet defining in (also, in ) if and only if is not contained into a -cycle of .
(ii) An -cycle inequality is facet defining in (also, in ) if and only corresponding -cycle is chordless.
(iii) is defined by all edge and -cycle inequalities, while is defined by all -cycle inequalities.
In fact, (i) and (ii) above were proved in [6], (iii) was proved in [5]; see also Section 27.3 in [23].
The following Theorem, proved in [30] for cones and in [4] for polytopes, clarifies when the metric and cut polytope coincides:
Theorem 2**.**
* or, equivalently, if and only if does not have any -minor.*
As a corollary of Theorem 2, we have that the facets of (also, in ) are determined by edge inequalities and -cycle inequalities if and only if does not have any -minor.
-cycle inequality is usual triangle inequality; in fact, it is unique, among edge and all -cycle inequalities to define a facet in a .
The girth and circumference of a graph, having cycles, are the length of the shortest and longest cycle, respectively. In a graph , a chordless cycle is any cycle, which is induced subgraph; so, any triangle, any shortest cycle and any cycle, bounding a face in some embedding of , are chordless. Let and denote the number of all and of all chordless -cycles in , respectively.
There are edge faces, which decompose into orbits, one for each orbit of edges of under . There are -cycle faces, which decompose into orbits, one for each orbit of -cycles of under .
The incidence of edge faces is and the size of each orbit is twice the size of corresponding orbit of edges. The incidence of -cycle faces is and the size of each orbit is times the size of corresponding orbit of -cycles in .
By Wagner’s theorem [32], a finite graph is planar if and only if it has no minors and . For embeddability on the projective plane , there are exactly forbidden topological minors and exactly forbidden minors (see [1, 27]). For embeddability on the torus , forbidden minors are known (see [26]) but the list is not necessarily complete. Closely related Kuratowski’s theorem [29] states that a finite graph is planar if and only if it does not contain a subgraph that is a subdivision of or of .
2.3. Skeletons of Platonic and semiregular polyhedra
Let be embedded in some oriented surface; so, it is a map , where is the set of faces of . Let denote the -vector of the map, enumerating the number of faces of all sizes , existing in .
Call face-bounding any -cycle of , bounding a face in map . Call an -cycle of -face-containing, edge-containing or point-containing, if all its interior points form just -gonal face, edge or point, respectively. Call equator any cycle , the interior of which (plus ) is isomorphic to the exterior (plus ).
The chordless -cycles of Octahedron, Cube, Icosahedron and Dodecahedron, respectively, are exactly their vertex-containing -cycles.
For Octahedron and Cube, they are exactly all and equators, respectively, which are, apropos, the central circuits and zigzags (see [22]), respectively.
All chordless -cycles of Icosahedron are exactly their edge-containing ones and face-containing ones, which are exactly the equators and the weak zigzags ([22]). All chordless -cycles of Dodecahedron are edge-containing ones and face-containing ones, which are exactly all equators and the zigzags.
Proposition 1**.**
If is the skeleton of a Platonic solid, then all possible facets of are: edge facets and -cycle facets, coming from all face-bounding cycles and from all (if they exist and not listed before) vertex-, edge-, face-containing cycles.
For instance:
(i) If (Tetrahedron), then has unique orbit of (simplicial) -cycle facets (from all face-bounding cycles of ).
(ii) If (Octahedron), then has facets in orbits, namely:
orbit of -cycle facets (from all face-bounding cycles, orbit of -cycle facets (from all vertex-containing -cycles).
(iii) If (Cube), then has facets in orbits, namely: orbit of edge facets, orbit of -cycle facets (from all face-bounding cycles),
orbit of -cycle facets (from all vertex-containing -cycles).
(iv) If is Icosahedron, then has facets in orbits, namely:
orbit of -cycle facets (from all face-bounding cycles),
orbit of -cycle facets (from all vertex-containing -cycles),
orbit of -cycle facets (from edge-containing -cycles),
orbit of -cycle facets (from face-containing -cycles).
(v) If is Dodecahedron, then has facets in orbits, namely:
orbit of edge facets, orbit of -cycle facets (from all face-bounding cycles), orbit of -cycle facets (from all vertex-containing -cycles), orbit of -cycle facets (from edge-containing -cycles), orbit of -cycle facets (from face-containing -cycles).
In a Truncated Tetrahedron, call ring-edges those bounding a triangle, and rung-edges all other ones.
Proposition 2**.**
(i) If is Truncated Tetrahedron, then has facets:
- (1)
orbit of edge facets (from all rung-edges), 2. (2)
orbit of -cycle facets (from all -face-bounding cycles), 3. (3)
orbit of -cycle facets (from all -face-bounding cycles), 4. (4)
orbit of -cycle facets (from rung-edge-containing -cycles, which are also the equators).
(ii) If is Cuboctahedron, then has facets, namely:
- (1)
orbit of -cycle facets (from all -face-bounding cycles), 2. (2)
orbit of -cycle facets (from all -face-bounding cycles), 3. (3)
orbit of -cycle facets (from all vertex-containing -cycles), 4. (4)
orbit of -cycle facets (from all -face-containing -cycles, which are also equators and the central circuits), 5. (5)
orbit of -cycle facets (from all -face-containing -cycles, which are also zigzags).
Given a () or an (), we call rung-edges the edges connecting two -gons, and ring-edges other edges.
Let be an ordered partition into ordered sets of consecutive integers. Call -cycle of the chordless -cycle obtained by taking the path on the, say, -st -gon, then rung edge (in the same direction, then path on the -nd -gon, etc. till returning to the path . Any vertex of can be taken as the -st element of , in order to fix a -cycle. So, a -cycle defines an orbit of -cycle facets of , except the case when the orbit is twice smaller.
A -cycle of is defined similarly, but we ask only and rung edges, needed to change -gon, should be selected, in the cases so that they not lead to a ring edge,i.e., a chord on . Clearly, -cycles are are all possible chordless -cycles with for and with for .
Proposition 3**.**
(i) If is (), then all facets of are:
- (1)
orbit of edge facets (from all rung-edges) 2. (2)
orbit of edge facets (from all ring-edges); 3. (3)
orbit of -cycle facets (from all -face-bounding -cycles); 4. (4)
orbit of of -cycle facets (from both -face-bounding -cycles); 5. (5)
orbits of cycle facets for all possible -cycles.
(ii) If is ), then all facets of are:
- (1)
orbit of -cycle facets (from all -face-bounding -cycles); 2. (2)
orbit of of -cycle facets (from both -face-bounding -cycles); 3. (3)
orbits of cycle facets for all possible -cycles.
2.4. Möbius ladders and Petersen graph
All Möbius ladders are toroidal. Möbius ladder , Petersen graph and Heawood graph are both, toroidal and -planar.
Given the Möbius ladder , call ring-edges those belonging to the -cycle , and rung-edges all other ones, i.e., for .
For any odd dividing , denote by the -cycle of , having, up to a cyclic shift, the form
[TABLE]
i.e., consecutive sequences of ring-edges, followed by a rung-edge. Such exists for any ; for , their existence requires divisibility of by . Clearly, the number of -cycles is .
Conjecture 1**.**
If (), then among facets of there are:
two orbits of and edge facets (from all ring- and rung-edges),
orbit of -cycles facets (from all -cycles),
orbit of -cycle facets (from all -cycles ),
for any odd divisor of , orbit of -cycle facets (from all -cycles ).
There are no other orbits for and for first two orbits unite into one of edge facets, while all other orbits unite into one of -cycle facets. has only one more orbit: the orbit of facets of incidence (i.e., simplicial facets), defined by a cyclic shift of
[TABLE]
also has only one more orbit: similar facets of incidence .
Petersen graph has three circuit double covers: by six -gons (actually, zigzags), by five cycles of lengths and by cycles of lengths . It can be embedded in projective plane, in torus and in Klein bottle with corresponding sets of six, five and five faces.
Petersen graph have only and -cycles; it has and . Heawood graph, i.e., -cage, have the girth and , .
Proposition 4**.**
* has facets in orbits:*
- (1)
orbit of edge facets, 2. (2)
orbit of -cycle facets, 3. (3)
orbit of -cycle facets, 4. (4)
orbit of simplexes, represented by
[TABLE]
where Petersen graph is seen as .
Remark 2**.**
Three of all orbits of facets of , are:
- (1)
* edge facets,* 2. (2)
* -cycle facets and* 3. (3)
* -cycle facets.*
2.5. Complete-like graphs
is toroidal only for , while it is -planar only for . Among complete multipartite graphs , the planar ones are: ; ; ; and their subgraphs. The -planar are, besides above: ; ; ; ; and their subgraphs ([11])
Given sets with and , let be complete multipartite graph with for .
All possible chordless cycles in are . triangles and quadrangles. Hence, if and only if and if and only if . So, among edge and -cycle facets of , only three such orbits are possible: edge facets if , -cycle facets if and -cycle facets if .
All cases, when there are no other facets, i.e., when has no -minor, are given in Table 1; note that the facets are simplexes for and . In particular, has no -minor only for . The facets of are the orbit of edge facets for , the orbit of -cycle facets for and two orbits (of sizes and ) of -cycle facets for .
Some of remaining cases presented in Table 2. For and , the number of orbits stays constant for any : and , respectively.
Given sequence of integers, which sum to , let us call
[TABLE]
(when it is applicable) hypermetric inequality. Note that is usual triangle inequality. Denote with all non-zero being by and with all non-zero being by .
If with , then has facets in orbits: orbits of -cycle facets, one orbit of -cycle facets and orbits of -valued non-s-cycle facets, having values and values of . The partition is .
has facets in orbits: orbits of -cycle facets, one orbit of -cycle facets and one orbits of facets, represented by
[TABLE]
The graph has a -minor only if . If , then has orbits of and -cycle facets and, for only, no other facets. The partition is .
If , then has facets in orbits: orbits of , -cycle facets and orbits of sizes , represented by and
[TABLE]
If , then among many orbits of facets of , there are orbits of -cycle facets and orbits of facets, represented, respectively, by
- (1)
, 2. (2)
3. (3)
and .
Among remaining orbits for , two (of sizes ) are -valued; they are represented, respectively, by
- (1)
and 2. (2)
.
Let . Clearly, it is if , respectively. For , it hold and all chordless cycles triangles and unique -cycle. Any of edges belongs to a triangle. So, among orbits of facets of , there are two (of size and ) orbits of -cycle facets and orbit of -cycle facets. All other facets for are -valued.
For with , unique remaining orbit consists of facets, represented by . Among remaining orbits for and , there is an orbit of facets represented by
- (1)
and, respectively, by 2. (2)
.
For , two remaining orbits (each of size ) are represented by
- (1)
and 2. (2)
, respectively.
For , one of remaining orbits (of size ) is represented by
.
Note that . Now, has ; has four orbits of facets: three (of sizes ) of -cycle facets and one orbit of size , represented by . Each of -minors, and provides of above facets.
has ; has three orbits of facets: one (of size ) of -cycle facets, one (of size ) of -cycle facets and one of size , represented by .
3. Quasi-metric polytopes over graphs
We first define the inequalities satisfied by quasi-metrics on -points.
Definition 2**.**
Given a fixed we define:
(i) The oriented triangle inequality for all
[TABLE]
(ii) The non-negativity inequality for all is
[TABLE]
(iii) A bounded oriented metric is a metric satisfying for all the inequalities
[TABLE]
Using this we can define the cone of quasimetrics (see [19, 16] for more details) to be the cone of oriented metrics satisfying the inequalities (i), (ii) of 2. We define the polytope to be the set of metrics satisfying the inequalities of 2.
Given a subset we define the oriented switching:
[TABLE]
The symmetric group acts on and define a group of size . The oriented switchings determine and act on and determine a group of size .
The cone and polytope are embedded into and but we have another interesting subset:
Definition 3**.**
Given and an oriented metric , is called weightable if it satisfies the following equivalent definitions:
(i) An oriented metric is called weightable if there exist a function such that for all
[TABLE]
(ii) For all we have
[TABLE]
We thus define the cone and polytope to be the set of weightable quasimetrics of the cone and polytope . Clearly, the oriented switching preserves .
With all those definitions we can now define the corresponding objects on graphs:
Definition 4**.**
Let be an undirected graph; we define the set of edges and to be the set of directed edges of :
(i) We define the cones and to be the projections of the cones and on .
(ii) We define the polytopes and to be the projections of the polytopes and on .
We can now give a description by inequalities of :
Theorem 3**.**
For a given graph the polyhedral cone is defined as the set of functions such that
(i) For any directed edge of the inequality .
(ii) For any oriented cycle of
[TABLE]
The same results holds for by adding the extra condition that there exist a function such that .
Proof.
Our proof is adapted from the proof of [23, Theorem 27.3.3]. It is clear that the cycle inequalities (i) and (ii) are valid for and that edges of do not occur in their expression. Therefore, the inequalities are also valid for the projection.
The proof of sufficiency is done by induction and is more complicated. Suppose that the result is proved for , i.e. to which an edge has been added. Suppose we have an element of satisfying all oriented cycle inequalities.
We need to find an antecedent of , i.e. a function . That is we need to find and .
We write to be the set of directed paths from to in . Assume first that . We write
[TABLE]
since is non-negative, we have . We then write
[TABLE]
with the reversal of the directed edge . If , i.e. if the edge is connecting two connected components of then we set .
We have since otherwise we could take a path realizing the minimum , a path and directed edge realizing the maximum put it together and get a counterexample to the oriented cycle inequality (ii).
So, we can find a value such that
[TABLE]
and since we can choose . The same holds for . Therefore we found an antecedent of in and this proves the result for and so the stated theorem.
For we have to adjust the induction construction. If then we can adjust the values of the weights such that . This is possible since the weights are determined up to a constant term.
On the other hand if is not empty then the weight is already given and we should get in the end . Actually this is not a problem since it can be easily be shown that and and so the inductive construction works. ∎
Now we turn to the construction for the polytope case.
Theorem 4**.**
For a given graph the polytope is defined as the set of functions such that
(i) For any directed edge of the inequality holds
(ii) For any oriented cycle of and subset of odd size
[TABLE]
The same results holds for with the extra condition that there exist a function such that .
Proof.
The proof follows by remarking that the inequalities (i) and (ii) are the oriented switchings of the non-negative inequality and oriented cycle inequality 2. Thus the proof follow from Theorem 3 and the same proof strategy as [23, Theorem 27.3.3]. ∎
The oriented multicut cones defined in the introduction are very complicated. In particular the oriented multicuts are not stable under oriented switchings. However, we have for . Based on that and analogy with Theorem 2 a natural conjecture would be that if has no minor. But it seems that for some other graphs with no minor we have .
4. hemi-metric polytopes over simplicial complexes
We can also generate metrics to a measure of distance of more than objects. Our approach differs from [15, 14, 17, 21] and has the advantage of allowing to define it on complexes.
We consider by the set of subsets of points of .
Definition 5**.**
Let us fix and :
(i) A -dimensional complex is formed by a subset of .
(ii) A closed manifold of dimension is formed by a subset of such that for each subset of points of the number of simplices of containing is even.
For the case the closed manifold of above definition corresponds to the closed cycles. We now proceed to defining the corresponding cycle inequalities:
Definition 6**.**
Let us fix and . Given a -dimensional complex on , the hemimetric cone is formed by the functions on satisfying
(i) the non-negative inequalities
[TABLE]
for all .
(ii) For all closed manifolds formed by simplices the inequalities
[TABLE]
for all .
For the definition corresponds to the one of .
Theorem 5**.**
Let us fix and . Let us take a -dimensional complex on points. The cone is the projection of on the simplices included in .
Proof.
Our proof is adapted from the proof for metric of [23, Theorem 27.3.3]. The inequalities for are clearly valid on which proves one inclusion.
We want to prove it by induction the other inclusion. Suppose that we have a metric and a simplex . We want to find a metric on . That is we need to find a value of that extends the inequality. For a subset we define
[TABLE]
Let us consider the
[TABLE]
We now define the upper bound
[TABLE]
We have since implies .
The lower bound is formed by
[TABLE]
Suppose that . We have realized by and is realized by and a face . The union is not necessarily a closed manifold since may share simplices. If that is so we remove them and consider instead .
The inequality implies then
[TABLE]
which violates the fact that . Thus we can find a value with
[TABLE]
Thus we can find a value for that is compatible with an extension. ∎
The inequality set defining is highly redundant but is still finite so, the cone is actually polyhedral.
On the other hand, using the inequalities obtained from the simplex does not work. Consider for example the complex . The Octahedron has vertices and faces and is a closed manifold. Thus it determines an inequality of the form
[TABLE]
which is not implied by the inequality on the simplices. The proof can be done by linear programming using our software polyhedral ([25]). This proves that our construction is different from the one of [15, 14, 21] and it would be interesting to redo the computations of those works.
5. Acknowledgments
Second author gratefully acknowledges support from the Alexander von Humboldt foundation.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] D. Archdeacon, A Kuratowski theorem for the projective plane , J. Graph Theory 5 (1981), no. 3, 243–246, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgt.3190050305 , doi:10.1002/jgt.3190050305.
- 2[2] D. Avis, P. Hayden, and M. M. Wilde, Leggett-Garg inequalities and the geometry of the cut polytope , Phys. Rev. A (3) 82 (2010), no. 3, 030102, 4, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/Phys Rev A.82.030102 , doi:10.1103/Phys Rev A.82.030102.
- 3[3] D. Avis and Mutt, All the facets of the six-point Hamming cone , European J. Combin. 10 (1989), no. 4, 309–312, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S 0195-6698(89)80002-2 , doi:10.1016/S 0195-6698(89)80002-2.
- 4[4] F. Barahona, The max-cut problem on graphs not contractible to K s subscript 𝐾 𝑠 K_{s} , Oper. Res. Lett. 2 (1983), no. 3, 107–111, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-6377(83)90016-0 , doi:10.1016/0167-6377(83)90016-0.
- 5[5] F. Barahona, On cuts and matchings in planar graphs , Math. Programming 60 (1993), no. 1, Ser. A, 53–68, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF 01580600 , doi:10.1007/BF 01580600.
- 6[6] F. Barahona and A. R. Mahjoub, On the cut polytope , Math. Programming 36 (1986), no. 2, 157–173, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF 02592023 , doi:10.1007/BF 02592023.
- 7[7] D. Bryant and P. F. Tupper, Hyperconvexity and tight-span theory for diversities , Adv. Math. 231 (2012), no. 6, 3172–3198, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2012.08.008 , doi:10.1016/j.aim.2012.08.008.
- 8[8] D. Bryant and P. F. Tupper, Diversities and the geometry of hypergraphs , Discrete Math. Theor. Comput. Sci. 16 (2014), no. 2, 1–20.
