update the proof
This commit is contained in:
28
notes.tex
28
notes.tex
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
|
|||||||
\maketitle
|
\maketitle
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
We want to use basepacking on perturbed graphic matroid. Basepacking works for deletion closed matroid classes with constant cogirth-packing gap.
|
We want to use basepacking on perturbed graphic matroid. Basepacking works for deletion closed matroid classes with constant cogirth-packing gap.
|
||||||
PGMs are closed under deletion. It remains to show PGMs have constant gap.
|
PGMs are closed under deletion.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Geelen and Kapadia reduce the cogirth problem on PGMs to finding the cogirth of $(1,t)$-signed grafts.
|
Geelen and Kapadia reduce the cogirth problem on PGMs to finding the cogirth of $(1,t)$-signed grafts.
|
||||||
We work on binary matroid $M$ defined on the following binary matrix:
|
We work on binary matroid $M$ defined on the following binary matrix:
|
||||||
@@ -48,12 +48,12 @@ Let $F^*\in \argmin_{F\subset E} \frac{|E-F|}{r'(E)-r'(F)}$.
|
|||||||
So the gap $\frac{\lambda(M')}{\sigma(M')}\leq \frac{2\lambda(M)}{\sigma(M)}$.
|
So the gap $\frac{\lambda(M')}{\sigma(M')}\leq \frac{2\lambda(M)}{\sigma(M)}$.
|
||||||
\end{proof}
|
\end{proof}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\begin{lemma}
|
\begin{lemma}\label{contraction_gap}
|
||||||
Let $M$ be a binary matroid with representation $A\in \F_2^{n\times m}$. Let $A'$ be the binary matrix $[A,T]$ for any $T\in \F_2^n$. If $M$ and deletion minors of $M$ have constant gap, then $M(A')/T$ also has constant gap.
|
Let $M$ be a binary matroid with representation $A\in \F_2^{n\times m}$. Let $A'$ be the binary matrix $[A,T]$ for any $T\in \F_2^n$. If $M$ and deletion minors of $M$ have constant gap, then $M(A')/T$ also has constant gap.
|
||||||
\end{lemma}
|
\end{lemma}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\paragraph{Graphic case}
|
\paragraph{Graphic case}
|
||||||
Before proving this lemma consider a easier case where $M$ is graphic. The new element $T$ identifies a vertex set $T$ (abusing notations). The minimum cocircuit of $M'/T$ is exactly the minimum even cut in $(G,T)$. Consider the fundamental circuits $C(B,T)$. $C(B,T)\cap E$ for any spanning tree $B$ is exactly the $T$-join in $B$. What is a base of $M'/T$? $B-e$ for all spanning tree $B$ and $e\in C(B,T)\setminus \set{T}$. This base hitting set of $M'/t$ is the even cut.
|
Before proving this lemma consider an easier case where $M$ is graphic. The new element $T$ identifies a vertex set $T$ (abusing notations). The minimum cocircuit of $M'/T$ is exactly the minimum even cut in $(G,T)$. Consider the fundamental circuits $C(B,T)$. $C(B,T)\cap E$ for any spanning tree $B$ is exactly the $T$-join in $B$. What is a base of $M'/T$? $B-e$ for all spanning tree $B$ and $e\in C(B,T)\setminus \set{T}$. This base hitting set of $M'/t$ is the even cut.
|
||||||
We want to prove the followings:
|
We want to prove the followings:
|
||||||
\[
|
\[
|
||||||
\lambda(M'/t)\leq \lambda_2(G)\leq 2\sigma_2(G)\leq 2(|J|+\sigma(M'/T)|_{E\setminus J}),
|
\lambda(M'/t)\leq \lambda_2(G)\leq 2\sigma_2(G)\leq 2(|J|+\sigma(M'/T)|_{E\setminus J}),
|
||||||
@@ -69,9 +69,9 @@ Then we discuss the connections in the minimum cut of $G$, the minimum $T$-cut o
|
|||||||
Now we generalize this idea to binary matroids. Note that we need constant gap for all deletion minors of $M$ since we are going to use the gap of 2-cocycle LP of $M$.
|
Now we generalize this idea to binary matroids. Note that we need constant gap for all deletion minors of $M$ since we are going to use the gap of 2-cocycle LP of $M$.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Instead of $T$-cut we find the minimum hitting set of $C(B,T)$ for all base $B$. An useful lemma is the following.
|
Instead of $T$-cut we find the minimum hitting set of $C(B,T)$ for all base $B$. An useful lemma is the following.
|
||||||
\begin{lemma}
|
\begin{lemma}\label{TcutTjoin}
|
||||||
Let $M$ be a binary matroid and let $M'$ be $(M+f)/f$ for a new element $f$ ($+$ is extension on binary representation).
|
Let $M$ be a binary matroid and let $M'$ be $(M+f)/f$ for a new element $f$ ($+$ is extension on binary representation).
|
||||||
The cogirth of $M$ is either the minimum hitting set of $\{C(B,f)|\forall B\}$ or the cogirth of $M'$.
|
The cogirth of $M$ is either the minimum hitting set of $\{C(B,f)\setminus f|\forall B\}$ or the cogirth of $M'$.
|
||||||
\end{lemma}
|
\end{lemma}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\begin{proof}
|
\begin{proof}
|
||||||
@@ -86,15 +86,29 @@ Let $A$ be the binary representation of $M$. Note that the cocircuit space of $M
|
|||||||
|
|
||||||
Now we consider the hitting sets. It follows from definitions that the minimum hitting set of $\{B-e |\forall B ,\forall e\in B\cap C(B,f)\}$ is exactly the minimum cocircuit of $(M+f)/f$, which is the minimum set in the cocircuit space with $yv=0$. So the minimum hitting set of $B-e$ is always an even cocycle.
|
Now we consider the hitting sets. It follows from definitions that the minimum hitting set of $\{B-e |\forall B ,\forall e\in B\cap C(B,f)\}$ is exactly the minimum cocircuit of $(M+f)/f$, which is the minimum set in the cocircuit space with $yv=0$. So the minimum hitting set of $B-e$ is always an even cocycle.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Consider a set $X$ which fails to hit all $\{C(B,f)|\forall B\}$. Then there must be a set $F\subseteq E\setminus X$ that span the new element $f$. On matrix, this is equivalent to the existence of $\chi_F$ that $A\chi_F=v$.
|
Consider a set $X$ which fails to hit all $\{C(B,f)\setminus f|\forall B\}$. Then there must be a set $F\subseteq E\setminus X$ that span the new element $f$. On matrix, this is equivalent to the existence of a indicator vector $\chi_F$ such that $A\chi_F=v$.
|
||||||
% Using Farkas' lemma on $\mathbb F_2$, this implies that there dose not exists $y$ that $\supp(yA)\subset X\land yv=1$. \note{chatGPT says one can use Farkas lemma on finite field like this, need to verify.}
|
% Using Farkas' lemma on $\mathbb F_2$, this implies that there dose not exists $y$ that $\supp(yA)\subset X\land yv=1$. \note{chatGPT says one can use Farkas lemma on finite field like this, need to verify.}
|
||||||
\begin{lemma}[Farkas' lemma on $\F_2$]
|
\begin{lemma}[Farkas' lemma on $\F_2$]
|
||||||
Let $A$ be a $n\times m$ binary matrix and $b$ be a $n$-dimensional binary vector. Either there is a $x\in \F_2^m$ such that $Ax=b$, or there is $y\in \F_2^n$ such that $y^TA=0$ and $y^Tb=1$.
|
Let $A$ be a $n\times m$ binary matrix and $b$ be a $n$-dimensional binary vector. Either there is a $x\in \F_2^m$ such that $Ax=b$, or there is $y\in \F_2^n$ such that $y^TA=0$ and $y^Tb=1$.
|
||||||
\end{lemma}
|
\end{lemma}
|
||||||
Then $X$ fails to be a hitting set is equivalent to the fact that there does not exist $y$ satisfying $\supp(yA)\subset X\land yv=1$.
|
Then $X$ fails to be a hitting set is equivalent to the fact that there does not exist $y$ satisfying $\supp(yA)\subset X\land yv=1$.
|
||||||
So $X$ hits all $\{C(B,f)|\forall B\}$ iff there is such a $y$. Minimizing $X$ pushes it to $\supp(yA)$ which is an odd cocycle. Hence, the minimum hitting set for $C(B,f)$ is always an odd cocycle.
|
So $X$ hits all $\{C(B,f)\setminus f|\forall B\}$ iff there is such a $y$. Minimizing $X$ pushes it to $\supp(yA)$ which is an odd cocycle. Hence, the minimum hitting set for $\{C(B,f)\setminus f|\forall B\}$ is always an odd cocycle.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
The theorem then follows directly from the fact that any cocycle is either odd or even.
|
The theorem then follows directly from the fact that any cocycle is either odd or even.
|
||||||
\end{proof}
|
\end{proof}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Now we prove \autoref{contraction_gap}.
|
||||||
|
\begin{proof}
|
||||||
|
We follow the same framework as graphic case. Let $c$ be the 2-hitting set gap and let $c'$ be the cogirth-packing gap of $M$. We have
|
||||||
|
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}
|
||||||
|
\lambda(M'/t)\leq \lambda_2(G)\leq c\sigma_2(G)\leq c(|J|+\sigma(M'/T)|_{E\setminus J})
|
||||||
|
\end{equation}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
where $J$ is the minimum hitting set of $\{C(B,f)\setminus f|\forall B\}$.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
We then apply \autoref{TcutTjoin}. If $\lambda(M'/t)=\lambda(M)$, then we have $\lambda(M'/t)= \lambda(M)\leq c \sigma(M)\leq c\sigma(M'/t)$, since the optimal solution to $\sigma(M'/t)$ is feasible to $\sigma(M)$. Otherwise, we extend \autoref{eq1} and get $\lambda(M'/t)\leq c(|J|+\sigma(M'/T))=c(\lambda(M)+\sigma(M'/T))\leq c(c'+1)\sigma(M'/T)$.
|
||||||
|
\end{proof}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The constant gap for matroids on $(1,t)$-signed grafts then follows.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\end{document}
|
\end{document}
|
||||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user