complete principal seq list

main.tex

@@ -179,17 +179,19 @@ Consider the Lagrangian dual,
 We have shown that the budget $B$ in normalized min-cut does not really matter as long as $B>b$. Note that $L(\lambda)$ and the normalized min-cut look similar to the principal sequence of partitions of a graph and the graph strength problem.
 
 \subsection{graph strength}
-Assume that the graph $G$ is connected (otherwise add dummy edges). 
+% Assume that the graph $G$ is connected. 
 Given a graph $G=(V,E)$ and a cost function $c:V\to \Z_+$, the strength $\sigma(G)$ is defined as $\sigma(G)=\min_{\Pi}\frac{c(\delta(\Pi))}{|\Pi|-1}$, where $\Pi$ is any partition of $V$, $|\Pi|$ is the number of parts in the partition and $\delta(\Pi)$ is the set of edges between parts. Note that an alternative formulation of strength (using graphic matroid rank) is $\sigma(G)=\min_{F\subset E} \frac{|E-F|}{r(E)-r(F)}$, which in general is the fractional optimum of matroid base packing.
 
-The principal sequence of partitions of $G$ is a piecewise linear concave curve $L(\lambda)=\min_\Pi c(\delta(\Pi))-\lambda |\Pi|$. Cunningham used principal partition to computed graph strength\cite{cunningham_optimal_1985}. There is a list of good properties mentioned in \cite[Section 6]{chekuri_lp_2020}(implicated stated in \cite{cunningham_optimal_1985}).
+The principal sequence of partitions of $G$ is a piecewise linear concave curve $L(\lambda)=\min_\Pi c(\delta(\Pi))-\lambda |\Pi|$. ($L(\lambda)=\min_{F\in E}c(E\setminus F)-\lambda(r(E)-r(F)+1)$) Cunningham used principal partition to computed graph strength\cite{cunningham_optimal_1985}. There is a list of good properties mentioned in \cite[Section 6]{chekuri_lp_2020}(implicated stated in \cite{cunningham_optimal_1985}).
 \begin{itemize}
+\item We can assume $G$ is connected and deal with the smallest strength component. One can see this by fractional base packing on the direct sum of matroids. Note that on disconnected graphs we should use the edge set definition instead of partitions.
 \item $L(\lambda)$ is piecewise linear concave since it is the lower envelope of some line arrangement.
-\item For each line segment on $L(\lambda)$ there is a corresponding partition $\Pi$. If $\lambda^*$ is a breakpoint on $L(\lambda)$, then there are two optimal solution (say partitions $P_1$ and $P_2$, assuming $|P_1|\leq|P_2|$) to $\min_\Pi c(\delta(\Pi))-\lambda^* |\Pi|$.  Then $P_2$ is a refinement of $P_1$.
+\item For each line segment on $L(\lambda)$ there is a corresponding partition $\Pi$. If $\lambda^*$ is a breakpoint on $L(\lambda)$, then there are two optimal solution (say partitions $P_1$ and $P_2$, assume $|P_1|\leq|P_2|$) to $\min_\Pi c(\delta(\Pi))-\lambda^* |\Pi|$.  Then $P_2$ is a refinement of $P_1$.
     \begin{proof}[sketch]
-        Suppose that $P_2$ is not a refinement of $P_1$. We claim that the meet of $P_1$ and $P_2$ achieves a objective value at least no larger than $P_1$ or $P_2$ does. For simplicity we assume $G$ is connected. The correspondence between graphic matroid rank function and partitions of $V$ gives us a reformulation $L(\lambda^*)=\min_{F\subset E}c(E-F)-\lambda^*(r(E)-r(F)+1)$. Let $g(F)=c(E-F)+\lambda^*r(F)-\lambda^* n$. Then the claim is equivalent to the fact that for two optimal solutions $F_1,F_2$ to $L(\lambda^*)$, $g(F_1\cup F_2)\leq g(F_1)=g(F_2)\leq g(F_1\cap F_2)$, which can be seen by submodularity of matroid rank functions.
+        Suppose that $P_2$ is not a refinement of $P_1$. We claim that the meet of $P_1$ and $P_2$ achieves a objective value at least no larger than $P_1$ or $P_2$ does. The correspondence between graphic matroid rank function and partitions of $V$ gives us a reformulation $L(\lambda^*)=\min_{F\subset E}c(E-F)-\lambda^*(r(E)-r(F)+1)$. Here $F$ is the set of edges in each part of $\Pi$. Let $g(F)=c(E-F)+\lambda^*r(F)-\lambda^* n$. Then the claim is equivalent to the fact that for two optimal solutions $F_1,F_2$ to $L(\lambda^*)$, $g(F_1\cap F_2)\leq g(F_1)=g(F_2)\leq g(F_1\cup F_2)$, which can be seen by the submodularity of $g$.
     \end{proof}
-\item Let $\lambda^*$ be a breakpoint on $L(\lambda)$ induced by edge set $F$. The next breakpoint is induced by the edge set $F'$ such that $F'$ contains $F$ and $F'-F$ is the solution to strength problem on the smallest strength component of $G\setminus F$.
+The number of breakpoints on $L(\lambda)$ is at most $n-1$.
+\item Let $\lambda^*$ be a breakpoint on $L(\lambda)$ induced by edge set $F$. The next breakpoint is induced by the edge set $F'\subset F$ and $F'$ is the solution to strength problem on the smallest strength component of $F$. $\lambda^*$ is the strength of the smallest strength component in $F$. These claims can be seen by the following arguments. From the previous bullet we can see that $\min_{\Delta F} c(E-F+\Delta F)-\lambda^*(r(E)-r(F-\Delta F)+1)=L(\lambda^*)$. Consider the largest $\lambda^*$ which allows $\Delta F=\emptyset$ to be an optimal solution. Such $\lambda^*$ would be the next breakpoint. For any $\Delta F$, $c(E-F+\Delta F)-\lambda^*(r(E)-r(F-\Delta F)+1)\geq c(E-F)-\lambda^*(r(E)-r(F)+1)$. Thus we have $\lambda^*\leq \frac{c(\Delta F)}{r(F)-r(F-\Delta F)}$.
 \end{itemize}
 
 (there is a $\pm1$ difference between principal partition and graph strength... but we dont care those $c\lambda$ terms since the difficult part is minimize $L(\lambda)$ for fixed $\lambda$)