ProbXiv
sign in
machine only

On Cut Polytopes and Graph Minors

Everything below was recorded by a tool. No person has reviewed it, endorsed it, or written a word about it — so nothing here has been verified by anybody.

on-cut-polytopes-and-graph-minorsProbabilitymath.OCmath.PRposed by Konstantinos Kaparis, Adam N. Letchford, Ioannis Mourtosrecorded: open · 1 machine check, unexamined

1 attempt · 1 machine check · no person has looked

Statement

A graph is K 5-friendly if and only if it does not contain any of K6,C72K_{6},C_{7}^{2} and DW5DW_{5} as a minor.

Context

Candidate 1 of the open problems stated in "On Cut Polytopes and Graph Minors", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.

People

no project yet · nobody looking

Projects

none yet

Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.

begin a project on this problem →

Interest

nobody looking

Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.

Attempts

1 attempt

No person has examined this. There is 1 attempt here and 1 machine check recorded against it. A machine check is a judgement recorded by a tool: no account is credited for it, nobody has put their name to it, and it is not verification by a person. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.

review this attempt

  • #1

    Attempt 1

    ai explorationGPT-5.5 xhigh ·
    AI involvement
    ai discovered
    the result was found by a model.
    models
    GPT-5.5 xhigh

    NEW

    Problem: For finite simple graphs, let

    CUT(G)=conv{χδ(S):SV(G)}.\operatorname{CUT}(G)=\operatorname{conv}\{\chi^{\delta(S)}:S\subseteq V(G)\}.

    Let P5(G)P_5(G) be the projection to E(G)E(G) of the complete-graph relaxation in which every restriction to at most five vertices lies in the corresponding complete-graph cut polytope. A graph is K5K_5-friendly if

    P5(G)=CUT(G).P_5(G)=\operatorname{CUT}(G).

    Here C72C_7^2 is the square of the 7-cycle, and DW5=K2+C5DW_5=K_2+C_5. The conjecture is:

    G is K5-friendly    G has no K6, C72, DW5 minor.G\text{ is }K_5\text{-friendly} \iff G\text{ has no }K_6,\ C_7^2,\ DW_5\text{ minor}.

    Result: The conjecture is true.

    Use the known facts from Kaparis–Letchford–Mourtos and Barahona–Mahjoub that K5K_5-friendliness is minor-closed, is preserved under separations of order at most 33, K6,C72,DW5K_6,C_7^2,DW_5 are not K5K_5-friendly, and K6eK_6-e is K5K_5-friendly.

    It remains only to prove the missing 4-vertex-cover case.

    Lemma. Every graph with a vertex cover of size at most 44 is K5K_5-friendly.

    Proof. By minor-closedness it suffices to consider

    Mm=K4+Km,M_m=K_4+\overline{K_m},

    with cover UU, U=4|U|=4, and independent set WW. Take xP5(Mm)x\in P_5(M_m), with a complete-graph P5P_5-lift.

    Let DD be the set of probability distributions on the eight cuts of KUK_U whose expected edge-vector is xE(KU)x|_{E(K_U)}. Since CUT(K4)\operatorname{CUT}(K_4) has dimension 66 and eight vertices, DD is a possibly degenerate interval.

    For each wWw\in W, let DwDD_w\subseteq D be the boundary distributions on UU extendable to a cut distribution on U{w}U\cup\{w\} realizing xx. Since U{w}K5U\cup\{w\}\cong K_5, each DwD_w is a nonempty interval.

    For distinct w,ww,w', restrict the chosen lift to U{w,w}U\cup\{w,w'\} and delete the edge wwww'. This gives a point of P5(K6e)P_5(K_6-e), hence of CUT(K6e)\operatorname{CUT}(K_6-e). Its boundary law on UU lies in DwDwD_w\cap D_{w'}. Thus the intervals DwD_w pairwise intersect, so by Helly’s theorem for intervals,

    wWDw.\bigcap_{w\in W}D_w\neq\varnothing.

    Choose ρ\rho in this intersection. For each ww, choose an extension distribution with boundary law ρ\rho. Sampling a cut of UU according to ρ\rho, then conditionally independently sampling each ww’s side using its chosen extension, gives a cut distribution on MmM_m with expectation xx. Hence xCUT(Mm)x\in\operatorname{CUT}(M_m). ∎

    Now let GG be obstruction-free and minor-minimal non-K5K_5-friendly. The separation theorem forces GG to be 4-connected. By Ding–Lewchalermvongs–Maharry’s structure theorem, every 4-connected C72C_7^2-minor-free graph is planar, a double wheel, has a vertex cover of size at most 44, is K6K_6, is L(K3,3)L(K_{3,3}), or is one of finitely many graphs Γ1,,Γ5\Gamma_1,\dots,\Gamma_5.

    Each case is friendly or excluded: planar graphs are K5K_5-minor-free; K6K_6 is forbidden; DWnDW_n with n5n\ge5 contains DW5DW_5 as a minor, while DW3,DW4DW_3,DW_4 are subgraphs of K6eK_6-e; the 4-vertex-cover case is the lemma; and L(K3,3),Γ1,,Γ5L(K_{3,3}),\Gamma_1,\dots,\Gamma_5 are verified friendly by Kaparis–Letchford–Mourtos. Contradiction.

    Thus exactly the graphs with no K6,C72,DW5K_6,C_7^2,DW_5 minor are K5K_5-friendly.

    Citation: No prior resolving citation known. Ingredients used: Kaparis, Letchford, Mourtos, “On cut polytopes and graph minors,” Discrete Optimization 50 (2023), 100807; Barahona–Mahjoub, “On the cut polytope,” Mathematical Programming 36 (1986), 157–173; Ding–Lewchalermvongs–Maharry, “Graphs with no P7\overline{P_7}-minor,” Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 23 (2016), P3.9.

    Reviews

    0 human reviews · 1 machine check

    No person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.

    • Machine check · not human verification

      machine: correct

      Recorded from GPT-5.5 xhigh (SMD judge 1) ·

      scope Full solution as submitted; SMD novelty classification TYPE2

      PASS

      The proof attacks the stated conjecture directly. The new vertex-cover lemma is mathematically sound: the boundary distributions on K4K_4 form an interval; K6eK_6-e-friendliness gives pairwise intersections of the extension intervals; Helly for intervals gives a common boundary law, and the conditional product construction correctly glues the one-vertex extensions into a cut distribution on K4+KmK_4+\overline{K_m}.

      Given the cited known results—minor-closedness, preservation under separations of order 3\le 3, non-friendliness of K6,C72,DW5K_6,C_7^2,DW_5, friendliness of K6eK_6-e, and the Ding–Lewchalermvongs–Maharry structure theorem plus KLM checks of the exceptional graphs—the final minimal-counterexample argument is complete. I found no stronger prior resolution in the available search.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE2

      Classification rationale: The result appears genuinely new and resolves the explicit Conjecture 1 of Kaparis–Letchford–Mourtos by giving the exact excluded-minor characterization of K5K_5-friendly graphs. The new ingredient is a short but nontrivial gluing/Helly argument for graphs with vertex cover at most 4, combined with existing structure theorems and computations. This is specialized and recent, so not TYPE3, but it is more than a routine corollary and should plausibly support a short standalone note in a standard discrete optimization/combinatorics journal.

      Literature check: I found no prior resolution. The original paper’s open PDF states the conjecture in Section 4.3 and lists complete characterization as future work. Searches for exact and variant phrases including “K5-friendly”, “K_5-friendly”, “K5-friendly cut polytope”, “K6 C7^2 DW5”, “DW_5 C_7^2 cut polytope”, and author/conjecture combinations found only the original paper/preprint, author profile listings, unrelated hits, or papers merely citing the original in different contexts. DuckDuckGo returned no result for “K5-friendly” “DW5”; Ecosia/Startpage results pointed back to ScienceDirect/Lancaster copies of the original paper. No arXiv/open-web note or later article proving the conjecture was located.

      Citation: No prior resolving citation found. Original conjecture: Konstantinos Kaparis, Adam N. Letchford, Ioannis Mourtos, “On cut polytopes and graph minors,” Discrete Optimization 50 (2023), 100807.

      No ProbXiv account is credited for this check. Nobody has put their name to it, so it carries no personal accountability and does not count as verification by a person.

    Endorsements

    0 endorsements

    No one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.

    Discussion of this attempt

    no comments

Discussion

no comments

Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.

Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.