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.
Statement
A graph is K 5-friendly if and only if it does not contain any of and 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
Projects
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.
Interest
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
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.
NEW
Problem: For finite simple graphs, let
Let be the projection to 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 -friendly if
Here is the square of the 7-cycle, and . The conjecture is:
Result: The conjecture is true.
Use the known facts from Kaparis–Letchford–Mourtos and Barahona–Mahjoub that -friendliness is minor-closed, is preserved under separations of order at most , are not -friendly, and is -friendly.
It remains only to prove the missing 4-vertex-cover case.
Lemma. Every graph with a vertex cover of size at most is -friendly.
Proof. By minor-closedness it suffices to consider
with cover , , and independent set . Take , with a complete-graph -lift.
Let be the set of probability distributions on the eight cuts of whose expected edge-vector is . Since has dimension and eight vertices, is a possibly degenerate interval.
For each , let be the boundary distributions on extendable to a cut distribution on realizing . Since , each is a nonempty interval.
For distinct , restrict the chosen lift to and delete the edge . This gives a point of , hence of . Its boundary law on lies in . Thus the intervals pairwise intersect, so by Helly’s theorem for intervals,
Choose in this intersection. For each , choose an extension distribution with boundary law . Sampling a cut of according to , then conditionally independently sampling each ’s side using its chosen extension, gives a cut distribution on with expectation . Hence . ∎
Now let be obstruction-free and minor-minimal non--friendly. The separation theorem forces to be 4-connected. By Ding–Lewchalermvongs–Maharry’s structure theorem, every 4-connected -minor-free graph is planar, a double wheel, has a vertex cover of size at most , is , is , or is one of finitely many graphs .
Each case is friendly or excluded: planar graphs are -minor-free; is forbidden; with contains as a minor, while are subgraphs of ; the 4-vertex-cover case is the lemma; and are verified friendly by Kaparis–Letchford–Mourtos. Contradiction.
Thus exactly the graphs with no minor are -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 -minor,” Electronic Journal of Combinatorics 23 (2016), P3.9.
Reviews
0 human reviews · 1 machine checkNo person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.
Machine check · not human verification
machine: correctscope 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 form an interval; -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 .
Given the cited known results—minor-closedness, preservation under separations of order , non-friendliness of , friendliness of , 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 -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 endorsementsNo 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
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.