Source-linked AI summary
Geometry-Dependent Online and Offline Approximation for Non-Monotone DR-Submodular Maximization
Vaneet Aggarwal, Yiyang Lu
TL;DR
The paper studies online and offline maximization of nonnegative, non-monotone DR-submodular functions over down-closed convex sets containing a supplied diagonal point. It develops geometry-dependent algorithms and query lower bounds, finding a 4/9 online guarantee at ζ = 0 and an offline upper bound of about 0.4704 there.
Problem
The paper asks what approximation guarantees are achievable for online and offline maximization of nonnegative, non-monotone DR-submodular objectives over down-closed convex sets.
Source: §1 · p. 1Method
It uses an upper-linearizable comparison for online guarantees and symmetry-gap hard instances, with smoothing, to bound offline algorithms using value and gradient queries.
Source: §1 · pp. 2–3Results
At ζ = 0, the online guarantee is 4/9 and the offline coefficient is at most β∗ ≈ 0.4704; both equal 1/2 for ζ ≥ 1/2.
Source: §1 · p. 2, §9 · p. 46Takeaways & Limitations
The guarantees and upper bounds depend on the feasible set’s supplied diagonal point, and the optimal coefficient remains open for 0 ≤ ζ < 1/2.
Source: §9 · p. 46The online upper-bound setting assumes exact value-and-gradient queries, exact projection, and a uniform algorithm with polynomial query and regret bounds.
Source: §7.2 · p. 38
Abstract
from arXiv · showhide
We study online and offline maximization of nonnegative, non-monotone DR-submodular functions over compact convex down-closed sets $K\subseteq[0,1]^d$ that contain a supplied diagonal point $\zeta\mathbf{1}$. Our online algorithm earns at least $\underline{\alpha}(\zeta)=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{(1-2\zeta)_+^2}{2(3-2\zeta)^2}$ times the reward of the best fixed feasible point, minus $O(\sqrt{T})$, using one possibly stochastic gradient query and one projection per round; $\underline{\alpha}(0)=4/9$. One post-decision noisy value query per round gives $O(T^{3/4})$ regret, and two exact value queries give $O(\sqrt{T})$. Conversely, no offline algorithm with polynomially many exact value-and-gradient queries attains a coefficient above an explicit $\beta_*\approx 0.4704$ at $\zeta=0$, improving the bound $2(e^{-1/2}-e^{-1})\approx 0.478$ of Oveis Gharan and Vondr\'ak (2011); for $\zeta>0$, two families of hard instances give an upper bound that we reduce exactly to finitely many convex problems below $\zeta=1/8$ and give in closed form above it. The bound $\beta_*$ also holds for nonnegative submodular set functions under a cardinality constraint, improving the previous $0.478$. Online-to-offline conversion gives $\underline{\alpha}(\zeta)-\varepsilon$ offline, and the upper bound also limits online learners with polynomial query budgets and uniform $O(T^\kappa)$ regret, $\kappa<1$. Both coefficients equal $1/2$ for $\zeta\ge 1/2$ and fall short of $1/2$ by order $(1/2-\zeta)^2$ below. For quadratic objectives we attain $1/2$, and for cubic objectives $\max\{8/17,\,2\sqrt{3-4r}/(1+\sqrt{3-4r})^2\}$ with $r=\min\{\zeta,1/2\}$. For submodular set functions, rounding the multilinear extension gives $\underline{\alpha}(\zeta)-\varepsilon$ under a matroid whose polytope contains $\zeta\mathbf{1}$ and $4/9-\varepsilon$ under a fixed number of knapsack constraints.
1 Introduction
The paper studies online and offline maximization of nonnegative, non-monotone DR-submodular functions over down-closed convex sets, using a feasible diagonal point to obtain geometry-dependent guarantees. It gives online algorithms and offline query lower bounds, with further results for polynomial objectives and submodular set functions.
1 Introduction
- One gradient query and one projection per round achieve the online coefficient with O(√T) regret; one noisy value query gives O(T^3/4), and two exact value queries give O(√T).The gradient guarantee also allows stochastic gradients that are conditionally unbiased, and the rewarded action remains feasible.Source: §1 · p. 2
- Hard instances bound polynomial-query offline algorithms using exact values and full gradients; for ζ > 0, the bound is reduced to finite convex problems below 1/8 and is closed-form above it.The bound at ζ = 0 also applies to nonnegative submodular set functions under a cardinality constraint.Source: §1 · p. 2
- At ζ = 0, the online coefficient is 4/9, while the offline coefficient is bounded above by β∗ ≈ 0.4704, improving the prior bound of approximately 0.478.Both coefficients equal 1/2 for ζ ≥ 1/2 and fall short by order (1/2 − ζ)^2 below that level.Source: §1 · p. 2
- Online-to-offline conversion gives offline guarantees, and repeating one offline objective shows that offline upper bounds also constrain online learners with polynomial query budgets and uniform sublinear regret.The paper compares earlier coefficients and its results across query models in Table 1.Source: §1 · p. 2, Table 1 · p. 4
- An upper-linearizable comparison yields the online guarantee: a state-dependent feasible action is compared with every feasible comparator through a field independent of that comparator.The field can be estimated from a gradient query or sampled along coordinate paths; projected gradient ascent on the estimated fields gives the regret bound.Source: §1 · pp. 2–3
- The lower-bound construction combines four submodular components with competing penalties on symmetric points, then smooths the objective so values and gradients agree near the symmetric subspace.Coupled packing constraints preserve feasibility of ζ1, while the constraint oracle reveals no information about the hidden permutation.Source: §1 · p. 3
- For degree-at-most-two DR-submodular polynomials the coefficient is 1/2; for degree-at-most-three objectives it is the maximum of 8/17 and a ζ-dependent coefficient, reaching 1/2 for ζ ≥ 1/2.For submodular set functions, rounding the multilinear extension gives α(ζ) − ε under a matroid polytope containing ζ1, and 4/9 − ε under a fixed number of knapsacks.Source: §1 · pp. 3–4
2 Related Work
Prior work developed continuous relaxations and online methods for non-monotone submodular optimization, while this paper extends upper-linearizable comparisons and symmetry-gap bounds to its setting. It also relates those guarantees to polynomial objectives and rounded set-function constraints.
Offline continuous relaxations
- Continuous relaxations and measured continuous greedy underpin earlier constrained non-monotone submodular methods, while Buchbinder and Feldman (2024) obtain 0.401 under smoothness and solvability assumptions.The offline method here instead uses an objective-independent comparison whose coefficient depends on the diagonal point.Source: §2 · p. 4
Online DR-submodular maximization
- Earlier online work studied non-monotone objectives and weaker feedback, while the general convex-constraint coefficient described here is 1/4 for down-closed sets.Aggarwal and Lu (2026) obtain 0.401 with post-decision value queries; Mualem and Feldman (2023) use a parameter measuring distance from the origin, unlike the diagonal level here.Source: §2 · p. 5
Upper-linearizable optimization
- The paper uses the upper-linearizable framework for online maximization, online-to-offline conversion, and value-feedback conversion, adapting the latter to keep queries inside the cube.Its comparison has one linear comparator term at coefficient 4/9, with implementations supplying unbiased field estimates and query procedures.Source: §2 · p. 5
Coordinate paths and polynomial structure
- Fixed-degree results draw on graph representations of pairwise submodular functions and cubic quadratization, then extend component decompositions to general polynomials by polarization.The coordinate-path analysis also resembles continuous double greedy, but uses a state-determined action and fractional comparator.Source: §2 · p. 5
Upper bounds
- The paper adds smoothing and gradient-agreement steps to symmetry-gap arguments, constructing hard instances for β* and positive diagonal levels.Earlier bounds include 2(e^-1/2 − e^-1) for a matroid and 0.478 for cardinality constraints [Oveis Gharan and Vondrák (2011); Qi (2022)].Source: §2 · p. 5
Rounding for set functions
- For set functions, swap rounding preserves expected multilinear value of a submodular objective on matroid polytopes; enumeration and rounding transfer continuous approximations to fixed-number knapsacks, where 4/9 is used because residual relaxations need not contain the original diagonal point.Source: §2 · p. 5
3 Problem Definition and Background
The paper studies nonnegative, non-monotone DR-submodular objectives on a cube, with feasible actions in a compact convex down-closed set containing a supplied diagonal point. It specifies online and offline oracle models and frames the algorithmic approach through upper-linearizable comparisons.
3 Problem Definition and Background
- The objective is nonnegative and has diminishing returns on the cube, while the feasible region is down-closed and the geometric assumption concerns feasible actions, not oracle query locations.Objective oracles answer queries throughout the cube.Source: §3 · p. 5
3.1 Objectives and feasible sets
- A feasible set K is compact, convex, and down-closed; the supplied diagonal level ζ requires ζ1∈K and need not equal K's largest feasible diagonal level.For packing constraints Ax≤b with A≥0, ζA1≤b suffices; for a cardinality relaxation, ζ may be min{1,k/d}.Source: §3.1 · p. 6
3.2 Online and offline oracle models
- Online play commits a feasible action before querying that round's objective, whereas offline play queries one objective before returning a feasible point.Online feedback may be stochastic; the offline upper bounds allow exact value-and-gradient responses, a stronger oracle than value-only or gradient-only queries.Source: §3.2 · pp. 6–7
3.3 Upper-linearizable comparisons
- Upper-linearizability bounds the approximation shortfall against every comparator by a linear term involving a field, allowing a linear online learner to select internal states.The feasible action map is independent of the objective, and the field is independent of the comparator; the method can estimate that field from feedback.Source: §3.3 · p. 7
4 Structural Results
The structural results establish objective-independent upper-linearizable comparisons for nonnegative DR-submodular functions and stronger comparisons for fixed-degree polynomials. They give state-based feasible actions and comparator-independent fields, with coefficients depending on the diagonal level or polynomial structure.
4.1 General DR-submodular objectives
- For general nonnegative DR-submodular objectives, the action hζ(x) depends only on the state and diagonal level, and its field averages partial derivatives along two coordinate paths.The paths are ordered so a weighted sum of function increments is bounded above even when individual increments can be negative.Source: §4.1 · p. 8, §4 · p. 8
- The general comparison replaces comparator coordinates by those of the prescribed action along ordered lower and upper chains, retaining a nonnegative origin-value term.Nonnegativity at intermediate upper-chain points and ordering their weights make the remaining weighted sum nonpositive.Source: §4.1 · pp. 8, 10
- The action hζ(x) is feasible whenever K contains ζ1, and the resulting comparison uses α(ζ)=1/2−(1−2ζ)_+^2/[2(3−2ζ)^2].This coefficient is nondecreasing, equals 4/9 at ζ=0, and reaches 1/2 for ζ≥1/2.Source: §4.1 · pp. 10–11
4.2 Quadratic and cubic objectives
- For fixed-degree objectives, a nonnegative decomposition into elementary terms and concave majorants yields a comparator-independent field from a scalar coordinate map.The construction extends pairwise graph representations to cubic terms and derives coefficients from inequalities for individual components.Source: §4.2 · p. 12
- For cubic objectives, the two action constructions give coefficients 8/17 and A3(min{ζ,1/2}); the cubic coefficient strictly improves the general coefficient when 0≤ζ<1/2.At ζ=0, α3(0)=8/17; above the reported crossing, α3(ζ)=A3(ζ).Source: §4.2 · pp. 12–13
- The cubic action either randomly selects between two scalar maps before observing the objective or applies a deterministic map adapted to ζ.The field is computable from polynomially many arithmetic operations on nonconstant coefficients.Source: §4.2 · pp. 12–13
5 Online Achievability
This section develops online algorithms that turn geometry-dependent comparisons into guarantees under gradient or value feedback, with performance depending on the feedback type and objective class. For degree-at-most-3 polynomial objectives, it also presents feedback-based methods, including a one-value-query-per-round approach using blockwise coefficient estimation and projected ascent.
5.1 A single gradient query for general objectives
- The single-gradient estimator is conditionally unbiased, with a bounded second moment for exact or stochastic gradient responses.Its query lies in Q; forming the coordinate order takes O(d log d) arithmetic and the query point takes O(d).Source: §5.1 · pp. 13–14
5.2 Applying the online reduction
- With one gradient query and one projection per round, Algorithm 1 achieves the geometry-dependent coefficient α(ζ) against the best fixed feasible point, minus O(√T) regret.The guarantee also applies to stochastic gradients under the stated moment conditions.Source: §5.2 · p. 15
5.3 Value feedback on the cube
- O(√T) regret is achieved with two exact value queries per round, while one stochastic value query per round gives O(T^3/4) regret.Both procedures use one projection per round; the value-oracle guarantee has coefficient α(ζ) ≥ 4/9 under the stated bounds.Source: §5.3 · p. 18
5.4 Gradient and value queries for polynomial objectives
- For polynomial objectives, either gradient or value interpolation uses q_m n queries and polynomially many arithmetic operations, with exact responses recovering the field and zero comparison error.With noisy responses, interpolation gives unbiased coefficient estimates, and a linear program restores DR-submodularity.Source: §5.4 · p. 19
- For degree-at-most-3 polynomial objectives, the exact-feedback method uses Q_m gradient or value queries per round, while the noisy-feedback version uses Q_mT queries per round.Each version uses one projection per round, queries only in the cube, and plays actions in K almost surely.Source: §5.4 · p. 22
- O(T^3/4) regret is achievable with one value query per round and one projection per block for degree-at-most-3 polynomial objectives.The method holds its state fixed within each block and updates it using estimates of the block-average objective.Source: §5.4 · p. 23
- At each block’s end, the method averages coefficient estimates, enforces DR-submodularity, normalizes by the cube minimum, computes a field, and uses projected ascent to choose the next state.Within each block, it plays an independent action-law draw and queries a uniformly sampled interpolation node.Source: §5.4 · pp. 23–24
6 Offline Upper Bound
This section establishes offline approximation upper bounds for non-monotone DR-submodular maximization using symmetry-gap constructions and hardness for exact value-and-gradient queries. It combines a four-component bound with a two-coordinate geometric bound, yielding a coefficient below 1/2 for diagonal levels below 1/2 and equal to 1/2 at and above that level.
6.2 A four-component construction for every diagonal level
- Four DR-submodular components, including extensions of Oveis Gharan and Vondrák (2011, Appendix E.2), produce U(ζ) as an upper bound on offline approximation.The construction combines components that share value one at an asymmetric optimum but penalize symmetric points differently.Source: §6 · p. 24, §6.2 · pp. 27–28
6 Offline Upper Bound
- The second upper bound, C(ζ), has a closed formula and is smaller than U(ζ) for ζ ≥ 1/4.Both upper bounds rely on converting finite symmetry gaps into hardness for exact value-and-gradient algorithms.Source: §6 · p. 24
6.1 Oracle model and the symmetry-gap argument
- A finite symmetry gap yields exponential-query hardness even with exact values, full gradients, and projections; smoothing makes values and gradients agree near the invariant subspace.The argument adapts the hidden-permutation method of Vondrák (2013).Source: §6.1 · pp. 25, 27
6.2 A four-component construction for every diagonal level
- U(0) = β* ≈ 0.470439, U(ζ) < 1/2 for ζ < 1/2, and U is nondecreasing; exceeding U(ζ) requires exponentially many exact value-and-gradient queries.For 0 < ζ < 1/8, U reduces to finite minimization, and for ζ ≥ 1/8 it has a piecewise rational formula.Source: §6 · p. 24, §6.2 · pp. 28, 30
- The four-component construction gives U(0) = β∗ and strictly improves on the central-cut and coverage bound of Oveis Gharan and Vondrák (2011, Appendix E.2).Its improvement comes from components Mn and Jn taking value one at an asymmetric witness, while a larger symmetric a-coordinate decreases Mn and increases Jn.Source: §6.2 · p. 32
6.3 Exact evaluation of the four-component bound
- For 0 < ζ < 1/8, U(ζ) is evaluated by finite convex problems, while for 1/8 ≤ ζ ≤ 1 it has closed-form expressions; U(ζ) → β∗ as ζ ↓ 0.On each interval, weights for n = 4, 3, or 2 give the upper bound, and a distribution over two branches gives the matching lower bound for every n ≥ 2.Source: §6.3 · p. 32
6.4 A closed-form bound near the half-diagonal level
- For 0 ≤ ζ < 1/2, a two-coordinate instance has optimum one and exact symmetry gap C(ζ), yielding αoracle(ζ) ≤ C(ζ) and exponential query hardness above C(ζ).At ζ = 1/4, C(ζ) = 63/128; for ζ ≤ 1/4, the instance constructed at ζ = 1/4 applies.Source: §6.4 · pp. 33–34
7 Offline and Online Results Transfer
The paper transfers guarantees between online and offline optimization: online-to-batch conversion yields feasible offline solutions, while constant-objective sequences carry offline oracle upper bounds to online learners. Together, these results bracket the coefficients across geometry levels and show both reach 1/2 when ζ≥1/2.
7 Offline and Online Results Transfer
- The transfers work in both directions: online-to-batch conversion produces offline algorithms, and constant-objective sequences transfer offline upper bounds to online optimization.The online-to-batch procedure returns one of the learner’s feasible actions.Source: §7 · p. 35, §7.1 · p. 35
7.1 Offline approximation from OTB
- Online-to-batch conversion returns a feasible offline point with expected value at least α(ζ)OPT−ϵ, including implementations using scalar value feedback.The conversion runs the online algorithm on a constant objective sequence and returns a uniformly sampled played action.Source: §7.1 · pp. 35–36
- For fixed quadratic or cubic objectives, one initial coefficient reconstruction supports offline optimization at the online-achievable coefficients, with later iterations using arithmetic and projections.The reconstruction uses gradient or value queries.Source: §7.1 · p. 36
7.2 Transferring the oracle upper bounds to online optimization
- A uniform online learner with polynomial query budgets and uniform O(T^κ) regret, κ<1, is limited by the offline oracle upper bound.The reduction runs the learner on a repeated offline objective.Source: §7.2 · p. 38
7.3 The resulting approximation intervals
- At ζ=0, 4/9 is achievable and β∗ is the oracle ceiling; for ζ≥1/2 both online and offline coefficients reach 1/2, with a Θ((1/2−ζ)^2) deficit below.For 1/4≤ζ<1/2, the stated bounds apply to either coefficient.Source: §7.3 · p. 39
8 Extension to Discrete Submodular Optimization
This section transfers continuous DR-submodular guarantees to nonnegative submodular set functions through multilinear relaxation and rounding. It gives geometry-dependent matroid guarantees, a fixed-number knapsack guarantee, and a value-query upper bound for cardinality constraints.
8 Extension to Discrete Submodular Optimization
- For matroids, rounding gives α(ζ)−ε when the polytope contains ζ1, while fixed-number knapsack constraints give 4/9−ε; β* is an upper bound under cardinality constraints and one matroid.The matroid guarantee is 4/9−ε when ζ=0; the knapsack guarantee uses the zero diagonal level of residual relaxations.Source: §8 · p. 40, §8.3 · pp. 43–44, §8.4 · p. 46
8.3 A fixed number of knapsack constraints
- Knapsack enumeration and rounding give 4/9−ε for a fixed number of constraints; residual relaxations may lose the original diagonal point, so the argument uses α(0)=4/9.The coefficient is polynomial-time attainable for fixed constraint count and fixed accuracy.Source: §8 · p. 40, §8.3 · pp. 43–44
8.1 Multilinear relaxation and set-value access
- The multilinear extension of a nonnegative submodular function is nonnegative and DR-submodular, enabling the continuous algorithm to use set-value queries.The stated oracle model also uses projections onto the relaxation and, for matroids, independence and convex-decomposition oracles.Source: §8.1 · p. 41
- The set-value procedure uses two queries per iteration and O(d^5η^-2) queries and projections for its fractional approximation.The procedure applies when the relaxation contains ζ1 and all feasible indicator vectors.Source: §8.1 · p. 41
8.2 One matroid
- For a uniform matroid of rank r, the largest feasible diagonal level is ζM=r/d, and swap rounding converts a fractional solution into a feasible independent set.The section's geometry-dependent matroid guarantee applies at this level.Source: §8 · p. 40, §8.2 · p. 42
8.4 The upper bound under a cardinality constraint
- Under a cardinality constraint, attaining β*+ε for nonnegative submodular maximization requires exponentially many value queries; the same upper bound holds under one matroid.The cardinality construction yields the matroid lower bound already for uniform matroids.Source: §8.4 · pp. 45–46
9 Conclusions
The conclusions collect geometry-dependent guarantees and upper bounds, while the appendix supplies elementary consequences of gradient antitonicity. These include segment concavity and preservation of DR-submodularity under nonnegative affine composition.
9 Conclusions
- At ζ=0, the best online and offline coefficients lie in [4/9, β*]; both equal 1/2 for ζ≥1/2, with shortfall of order (1/2−ζ)^2 below that level.The optimal coefficient between α(ζ) and α(ζ) remains open for 0≤ζ<1/2.Source: §9 · p. 46
- For quadratic objectives the paper attains 1/2, while for cubic objectives it attains max{8/17, A3(min{ζ, 1/2})}.For submodular set functions, the matroid coefficient lies in [4/9, β*], and fixed-number knapsack constraints attain 4/9−ε.Source: §9 · p. 46
Appendix A. Standard Facts and Elementary Consequences
- For continuously differentiable functions on the cube, the gradient extends continuously to the boundary under the paper's boundary convention.The function is continuous on the cube and differentiable in its interior.Source: Appendix A · p. 47
A.1 Integration on segments and finite summation
- The segment integration identity extends to cube endpoints by continuity, and the finite-sum inequality bounds the weighted sum by Wan under the stated monotonicity and sign conditions.The segment argument first applies the fundamental theorem of calculus in the open cube, then takes limits to the boundary.Source: §A.1 · p. 47
A.2 Consequences of gradient antitonicity
- DR-submodular functions are concave along coordinatewise comparable segments, and nonnegative affine composition preserves DR-submodularity and nonnegativity.The composition result requires an entrywise nonnegative matrix whose affine map stays within the cube.Source: §A.2 · p. 48
Appendix B. Proof of Theorem 4.4
The proof strategy decomposes the objective into simple components, bounds them with concave majorants, and applies scalar actions that retain a fixed fraction. A comparison for the shifted objective transfers to the original objective.
B. Proof of Theorem 4.4
- The proof writes the objective as a nonnegative combination of simple components, bounds each by a concave majorant, and establishes a fixed-fraction guarantee for scalar actions.The passage does not specify the rest of the constructions in this excerpt.Source: Appendix B · p. 49
- A comparison for F=f−min f transfers to f with the same field because min f is nonnegative and the coefficient is at most one.The identity relates the two comparison gaps by subtracting (1−α)min f.Source: Appendix B · p. 49
- The proof fixes vertex and arc orders and a deterministic maximum-flow algorithm, making arc capacities and supergradient choices depend only on nonconstant coefficients.The constant term affects only the residual minimum.Source: Appendix B · p. 49
B.1 Proof of the quadratic part
The quadratic proof represents the objective through a graph-cut construction and uses a concave majorant to establish a one-half comparison. A maximum-flow computation supplies the representation and the field bound.
B.1 Proof of the quadratic part
- For a quadratic DR-submodular polynomial, every Hessian entry is nonpositive, and a maximum-flow construction represents it using nonnegative unary, directed-cut, and diagonal terms.The representation is computable with one source–sink maximum-flow calculation on a graph with d+2 vertices and O(d^2) arcs.Source: §B.1 · p. 49
- The representation writes the polynomial as its vertex minimum plus nonnegative unary terms, directed cuts, and concave diagonal terms.The proof obtains this decomposition through residual-flow capacities.Source: §B.1 · pp. 49–50
- The concave majorant yields 1/2 f(o)−f(hQ(x))≤1/2⟨sf(x),o−x⟩ for x,o in the cube.The update p=hQ(x) remains feasible when x is feasible because 0≤p≤x and the set is down-closed.Source: §B.1 · pp. 50–51
- The field is computed from one maximum flow and the active-branch rule, with norm bounded by Λ2(f(1/2·1)−min f) and Λ2=4.The bound follows by applying the construction to f−min f.Source: §B.1 · p. 51
B.2 Cubic components
The section builds concave majorants for cubic components and uses them to support a decomposition based on cubic quadratization and graph cuts.
B.2 Cubic components
- The displayed minima are concave majorants of the coverage and product components.The component definitions use H_i;jk and J_i;jk; the section also identifies D, H, and J as directed, coverage, and product components.Source: §B.2 · p. 51
- The directed, coverage, and product components are combined with constants and unary terms, each unary term serving as its own majorant.The decomposition below draws on classical cubic quadratization and graph-cut representations.Source: §B.2 · p. 51
B.3 Nonnegative decomposition of multilinear cubics
The section decomposes nonnegative multilinear DR-submodular cubics into nonnegative component sums, then uses polarization to extend the result to cubics with repeated factors while preserving the minimum.
B.3 Nonnegative decomposition of multilinear cubics
- The proof reduces arbitrary multilinear cubics to three-variable functions and uses cubic quadratization followed by decomposition of the resulting functions.Auxiliary variables are kept separate in the residual representation, allowing their contributions to be minimized independently.Source: §B.3 · pp. 52, 54
- Every nonnegative multilinear DR-submodular polynomial of degree at most three is a polynomial-time constructible nonnegative sum of specified components, constants, and unary terms.The component list includes directed cuts and the H and J terms; the construction uses polynomially many arithmetic operations.Source: §B.3 · pp. 52–53
B.4 Polarization and preservation of the minimum
- Polarization replaces repeated factors with three interchangeable clones per coordinate, producing a multilinear DR-submodular polynomial of degree at most three.The polarized polynomial also preserves the original minimum over the cube.Source: §B.4 · p. 54
- The polarized polynomial’s minimum equals the original polynomial’s minimum over the cube, so nonnegativity is preserved.Concavity in each clone block places binary clone values above a chord between counts zero and three; those endpoint values correspond to original cube vertices.Source: §B.4 · pp. 54–55
B.5 Two scalar maps with coefficient 8/17
The section proves componentwise comparisons for a randomized action formed from two scalar maps. Those inequalities yield a 8/17 comparison for the listed components, while the action remains feasible in down-closed sets.
B.5 Two scalar maps with coefficient 8/17
- Using the same random draw across coordinates keeps the action feasible in every down-closed set containing the input point.The section establishes coverage and product inequalities on the cube, with directed and unary inequalities following as special cases of coverage.Source: §B.5 · p. 55
- The proof establishes the coverage inequality by reducing its slack to the plane where the majorant branches agree, then checking the resulting cases.The section also proves the product inequality across the cube by treating endpoints and the switching plane.Source: §B.5 · pp. 55, 57, 61
- The two-map action’s directed and unary inequalities follow from the coverage inequality.The section states these consequences as Corollary B.6.Source: §B.5 · p. 58
- The common scalar action satisfies the 8/17 comparison for every listed component, unary term, and nonnegative constant.The comparison averages the two maps with weights 8/17 and 9/17.Source: §B.5 · p. 61
B.6 Geometry-dependent cubic comparison
The section proves geometric component inequalities for a deterministic scalar map, yielding a cubic comparison and preserving feasibility in down-closed sets containing the supplied diagonal point.
B.6 Geometry-dependent cubic comparison
- A deterministic scalar map is stated to attain the coefficient A3(r).The construction sets its parameter b using r, with the displayed relation in the section.Source: §B.6 · p. 61
- For every r in [0, 1/2], the deterministic map satisfies the geometric cubic component inequalities for all u, v, and w in [0, 1].The map is applied to distinct component slots, which may correspond to different clones of one original coordinate.Source: §B.6 · pp. 61–62
- The scalar action remains in K whenever x is in K and r1 is in K.The proof uses down-closedness and bounds the action below a convex combination of feasible points.Source: §B.6 · pp. 62, 64
B.7 Completion of the cubic comparison
The cubic comparison applies componentwise scalar actions to a concave majorant, yielding the stated cubic guarantee. The construction also has polynomial-time evaluation complexity.
B.7 Completion of the cubic comparison
- Each concave summand majorizes its component, so CF is concave and satisfies CF(x) ≥ F(x) on the cube.The proof uses an active affine branch to upper-bound each summand at any comparison point.Source: §B.7 · p. 65
- The selected feasible action gives expected component value at least α3(ζ) times the concave component majorant, and the argument transfers this inequality to f.The action is chosen from the two-map construction or Hr, depending on ζ.Source: §B.7 · p. 65
- At the all-half point, component values are 1/2 for unary, 1/4 for directed, and 3/8 for coverage and product components.Active branch gradients have ℓ1 norm at most one for unary or directed components and at most two for coverage or product components.Source: §B.7 · p. 65
- The degree-three construction uses O(d^3) variables, monomials, graph vertices, and arcs, followed by one maximum-flow calculation and O(d^3) constant-size decompositions.The proof states that coefficients and active branches can then be evaluated in polynomial time.Source: §B.7 · p. 65
Appendix C. Proof of the smoothing step in Lemma 6.2
The smoothing step symmetrizes the function over a finite permutation group, then uses a smooth cutoff and correction terms to obtain nonnegative DR-submodular functions. The construction preserves the stated local first-order agreement near invariant points.
Appendix C. Proof of the smoothing step in Lemma 6.2
- The construction yields nonnegative, twice continuously differentiable DR-submodular functions bF and bG, with local first-order agreement as specified by Lemma C.1.The smoothing uses the invariant projection and cutoff construction.Source: Appendix C · pp. 66–67
- The averaging operator T is an orthogonal projection onto invariant vectors, maps the cube into itself, and preserves the coordinate sum.It is formed by averaging the permutation matrices over the finite group.Source: Appendix C · p. 66
- A quintic cutoff transitions from 1 to 0 between δ and b, with its first two derivatives vanishing at both endpoints.The cutoff uses ψ(s) = 1 − 10s^3 + 15s^4 − 6s^5 over the transition interval.Source: Appendix C · pp. 66–67
- The smoothed function eF interpolates between F and G0 using the cutoff, and is nonnegative because both functions are nonnegative.G0 is the symmetrized function; the interpolation is a convex combination.Source: Appendix C · p. 67
- Subtracting a quadratic correction makes the second partial derivatives nonpositive, establishing DR-submodularity of bF and bG.The proof then integrates the second partial derivatives along ordered points to establish the diminishing-returns condition.Source: Appendix C · p. 67
Appendix D. Proof of Proposition 6.5
The proof reduces the upper bound U(ζ) to finitely many convex problems below ζ = 1/8 and gives a rational formula on the remaining range below 1/2. It also establishes that U(ζ) tends to β* as ζ decreases to zero.
Appendix D. Proof of Proposition 6.5
- For 1/8 ≤ ζ < 1/2, the proof establishes the rational-formula pieces by matching upper bounds with feasible choices across consecutive ζ intervals.The pieces agree at their breakpoints, and the final piece tends to 1/2 as ζ approaches 1/2 from below.Source: Appendix D · pp. 68, 71, 72
- For ζ ≥ 1/2, the formula for U is its definition.The proof treats ζ = 0 separately using Corollary 6.4.Source: Appendix D · p. 68
- For 0 < ζ < 1/8, the minimum defining U(ζ) reduces exactly to indices in the finite interval [mζ, Nζ].Indices outside this interval have Vn(ζ) at least Vmζ(ζ).Source: Appendix D · p. 69
- As ζ decreases to zero, U(ζ) converges to β*.For any positive a, a finite n gives Vn(0) < β* + a, yielding the stated limit.Source: Appendix D · p. 72