Operations Research

Motivation

Before a queueing network's stability can be studied in any depth, a much cruder question has to be settled: is stability even possible for the given arrival rates and service capacities, under any control policy at all? For a single M/M/1 queue the answer is the familiar $\lambda < \mu$, but a general stochastic processing network (SPN) — many buffers, many activities, servers that can be pooled or shared across job classes — has no single scalar "utilization" to compare against a threshold. J. G. Dai and J. Michael Harrison's Processing Networks: Fluid Models and Stability (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming; cited here from the authors' pre-publication draft, 2020-4-2, http://spnbook.org) answers this with a linear program: the static planning problem, first formulated by Harrison (2000). This mission formalizes the theorem that answers the crude question in one direction — no control policy can stabilize a network outside the region that program identifies — which is why, as the book puts it, "throughout the remainder of this book, attention is essentially restricted to subcritical networks."

Setting

An SPN has $I$ buffers, indexed by $i \in \mathcal{I}$, and $J$ activities, indexed by $j \in \mathcal{J}$. Its first-order data — the quantities that matter for a capacity calculation, as opposed to full stochastic detail — are: the $I \times J$ material requirement matrix $B$ ($B_{ij}$ = number of class-$i$ items one type-$j$ service consumes), the $I \times J$ mean output matrix $\Gamma$ (its $j$th column is the expected output vector of a type-$j$ service), the mean service times $m_j > 0$, the $K \times J$ capacity consumption matrix $A$ (server pool $k$ against activity $j$), and the server-pool capacities $b \in \mathbb{R}_+^K$. From these,

$$R := (B - \Gamma)M^{-1}, \qquad M := \operatorname{diag}(m_1, \dots, m_J),$$

so that $R_{ij}$ is the long-run average rate at which activity $j$ depletes buffer $i$'s content.

Given an arrival-rate vector $\lambda \in \mathbb{R}_+^I$, the static planning problem (SPP) is the linear program

$$\gamma^\ast(\lambda) := \min_{x \ge 0,\, \gamma} \ \gamma \quad \text{s.t.} \quad Rx = \lambda, \quad Ax \le \gamma b,$$

whose decision variable $x_j$ is a long-run average activity rate and whose objective $\gamma$ upper-bounds every server pool's utilization. The network is subcritical at $\lambda$ if $\gamma^\ast(\lambda) < 1$, and the subcritical region is $\Lambda := \{\lambda : \gamma^\ast(\lambda) < 1\}$.

An SPN is stable (Definition 3.6, mission I) when its ambient Markov chain is positive recurrent, equivalently has a unique stationary distribution, equivalently its buffer contents converge in distribution to a non-defective limit. This mission's chapter portion (Chapters 4-5) also treats three extensions used elsewhere in the book: a Markovian arrival process replacing independent Poisson arrivals; alternate routing with immediate commitment, where arrivals must be routed into an eligible buffer at the instant they arrive, with routing rates constrained by an augmented version of the SPP; and processor sharing (PS) networks, whose service discipline falls outside the book's ordinary relaxed-control framework and is instead analyzed through an equivalent head-of-line (EHL) model built to have the same generator.

Formalization targets

Goal: Theorem 5.2 — only subcritical networks can be stable

$$\text{(baseline stochastic assumptions)} \ \wedge \ \text{(Markov representation)} \ \wedge \ \text{(SPN stable)} \implies \lambda \in \Lambda.$$

This is the weakest target that captures the chapter's content: it asserts nothing about which policy achieves stability, or whether subcriticality is sufficient (Chapters 6 onward answer that, case by case, and Chapter 5 itself gives two counterexamples where it is not) — only that subcriticality is unconditionally necessary.

Further results (milestones)

Proposition 4.1 (a strong law of large numbers for class-level arrivals under randomized routing), Proposition 4.4 (PS-network stability reduces to EHL-model stability), Proposition 5.1 (for a unitary network, subcriticality reduces to the classical load condition $\rho < b$), and Corollaries 5.4-5.6 (the same necessity conclusion under a Markovian arrival process, under alternate routing, and its consequence for maximally stable policies).

Significance

The result itself. Theorem 5.2 converts "can this network be stabilized at all?" from an open-ended search over control policies into a single linear-program feasibility check on first-order data alone. Corollary 5.6 turns this into the standard proof template every later chapter uses: exhibit a policy whose implementation does not reference $\lambda$, show it is stable throughout the subcritical region, and conclude maximal stability — without having to separately characterize the true stability region $\Lambda^\ast$, which the book calls "a deep mathematical problem" in general.

Formalizing it. A search of the platform for "processing network," "static planning problem," and "linear program" returned no hits: the SPN-specific static planning problem — its decision variables $x$ tied to a network's material-balance matrix $R$ and capacity matrix $A$ — has no existing counterpart, though the platform's linear-optimization field (16 missions) has general LP duality substrate a future proof of Proposition 5.1 or Theorem 5.2 could draw on. This mission is a from-scratch formalization of the SPP, the subcritical region, and the necessity theorem.

Difficulty

The natural first attempt states Theorem 5.2 as a claim about the buffer-contents process $Z(t)$ directly. This fails to separate cleanly from the proof, because the actual argument passes through an auxiliary quantity — the stationary mean $x := \mathbb{E}_\pi[N(0)]$ under the chain's (unique, by stability) stationary distribution $\pi$ — that has no meaning outside a specific proof strategy. The formalization instead states the goal purely in terms of the data $(R, A, b)$ and the hypothesis of stability, exactly as the book's own statement does, leaving $x$'s construction to the (currently sorry) proof. A second difficulty is Corollary 5.4's Markovian arrival process: naively reusing BaselineAssumptions with a non-Poisson arrival process is impossible, since Poisson-ness is a mandatory structural field of that definition, not an optional hypothesis — the corollary needs its own hypothesis structure that changes exactly the one clause Assumption 2.1(a) contributes and nothing else.

Formalization scope

Buffers and activities are Fin I, Fin J; matrices are Matrix over ℝ. The subcritical region is defined via the optimal SPP value $\gamma^\ast$, formalized with Mathlib's IsLeast (attained infimum, matching the book's own "$\gamma^\ast \le 1$ iff $x$ exists" phrasing, which presupposes attainment) rather than a bare existential — a formalization using, say, sInf would silently commit to junk values on an infeasible or unbounded LP and would not obviously match the book's own usage of $\gamma^\ast$ as literally attained. The basic SPN model's full state-process construction (Sections 2.3-2.4) is not re-derived from scratch here; Theorem 5.2 instead takes the structural facts its own proof invokes — the capacity constraint $AN(t) \le b$ (Eq. 2.11) and the material-requirement matrix $B$ — as explicit data, reusing mission I's BaselineAssumptions and MarkovRepresentation for the stochastic and Markov-chain apparatus. Proposition 4.4's shared- generator fact between a PS network and its EHL model (the actual content the book's construction of Section 4.4 establishes) is likewise taken as an explicit hypothesis rather than rebuilt from the refined-class/phase-type machinery of Eqs. (4.19)-(4.29); reconstructing that machinery from scratch, or reproving Proposition 4.1's SLLN from the chain's strong Markov property at regeneration times, are both welcome future contributions. A formalization that stated Theorem 5.2 with $\Lambda$ replaced by an unconstrained existential (dropping the LP structure entirely) would trivialize the chapter's actual content — the LP-feasibility characterization is what makes $\Lambda$ checkable, and is preserved here in full.

Selected references

• J. G. Dai and J. Michael Harrison, Processing Networks: Fluid Models and Stability, Cambridge University Press (forthcoming), pre-publication draft 2020-4-2. http://spnbook.org
• J. M. Harrison, "Brownian models of open processing networks: canonical representation of workload," Annals of Applied Probability 10 (2000), 75-103.
• J. G. Dai and W. Lin, "Maximum pressure policies in stochastic processing networks," Operations Research 53 (2005), 197-218.

Motivation

The stable set problem (vertex packing) asks for a largest set of pairwise non-adjacent nodes of a graph. It is NP-hard, and its polyhedral study, the description of the stable set polytope $\mathrm{STAB}(G)$ by linear inequalities, is one of the most studied topics of polyhedral combinatorics. Classes of valid inequalities (clique, odd hole, odd antihole, wheel constraints) and the graph classes they describe exactly (perfect, $t$-perfect, $h$-perfect graphs) organize much of that literature; see Grötschel, Lovász and Schrijver, Geometric Algorithms and Combinatorial Optimization (Springer, 1988).

Lovász and Schrijver (SIAM J. Optim. 1(2), 1991) introduced a general lift-and-project procedure for 0–1 programs: lift a relaxation $K$ into a space of matrices, impose linear conditions that every 0–1 point satisfies, and project back. One round of their operator $N$ gives a tighter relaxation $N(K)$ that still contains every 0–1 point of $K$; $n$ rounds give the 0–1 hull. The procedure is an ancestor of the Sherali–Adams and Lasserre hierarchies, and the stable set problem is its first test case. This mission formalizes the paper's exact description of what one round of $N$ does to the fractional stable set polytope: it adds precisely the odd hole constraints.

Setting

Let $G = (V, E)$ be a finite graph with no isolated nodes, $n = |V|$. Vectors of $\mathbb{R}^{V \cup \{0\}}$ have a distinguished coordinate $x_0$; $\mathbb{R}^V$ sits inside as the hyperplane $H_0 = \{x_0 = 1\}$, via $x \mapsto (1, x)$.

• $\mathrm{FRAC}(G) \subseteq \mathbb{R}^V$ is the solution set of the nonnegativity constraints $x_i \ge 0$ ($i \in V$) and the edge constraints $x_i + x_j \le 1$ ($ij \in E$).
• $\mathrm{FR}(G) \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{V\cup\{0\}}$ is the cone given by $x_i \ge 0$ and $x_i + x_j \le x_0$; it is the cone spanned by the vectors $(1, x)$ with $x \in \mathrm{FRAC}(G)$.
• $Q$ is the cone spanned by the 0–1 vectors with $x_0 = 1$. For a convex cone $K$, its polar cone is $K^* = \{u : u^{\mathsf T}x \ge 0 \ \forall x \in K\}$.
• $M(K) = M(K, Q)$ is the set of $(n+1)\times(n+1)$ matrices $Y = (y_{ij})$ that are symmetric, satisfy $y_{ii} = y_{0i}$ for $i \in V$, and satisfy $u^{\mathsf T} Y v \ge 0$ for all $u \in K^*$, $v \in Q^*$.
• $N(K) = \{Y e_0 : Y \in M(K)\}$, and $N(G) = \{x \in \mathbb{R}^V : (1, x) \in N(\mathrm{FR}(G))\}$.
• A set $C \subseteq V$ is an odd hole if it induces a chordless cycle of odd length $|C| \ge 3$ (triangles included). Its odd hole constraint is $\sum_{i \in C} x_i \le \frac12(|C| - 1)$.

Formalization targets

Goal: Theorem 2.3 (p. 178)

For every finite graph $G$ without isolated nodes,

$$N(G) = \Big\{x \in \mathbb{R}^V : x_i \ge 0\ (i \in V),\ \ x_i + x_j \le 1\ (ij \in E),\ \ \sum_{i \in C} x_i \le \tfrac12(|C|-1)\ (C \text{ an odd hole})\Big\}.$$

Milestones, in the order the proof uses them

1. Lemma 1.3 (p. 171): for a convex cone $K \subseteq Q$ and $i \in V$, $N(K) \subseteq (K \cap H_i) + (K \cap G_i)$, with $H_i = \{x_i = 0\}$, $G_i = \{x_i = x_0\}$.
2. Lemma 2.2 (p. 178): if both the deletion and the contraction of some node $v$ give inequalities valid for $K$, then $a^{\mathsf T}x \le b$ is valid for $N(K)$.
3. Part (1) of the proof of Theorem 2.3 (p. 178): for an odd hole $C$ and $i \in C$, the deletion and contraction of $i$ in the odd hole constraint are valid for $\mathrm{FRAC}(G)$.
4. Observation of Section 2.b (p. 177): every $Y \in M(\mathrm{FR}(G))$ has $y_{ij} = 0$ for $ij \in E$.
5. Part (2) of the proof of Theorem 2.3 (p. 178): $x \in N(G)$ if and only if some nonnegative symmetric $Y$ with $y_{00} = 1$, $y_{i0} = y_{ii} = x_i$ satisfies $x_i + x_j + x_k - 1 \le y_{ik} + y_{jk} \le x_k$ for all $i, j, k$ with $ij \in E$.
6. Lemma 2.4 (p. 178): a system $a(ij) \le y_i + y_j \le b(ij)$, $y \ge 0$, $y|_U = 0$ on a graph is infeasible if and only if a walk with a negative alternating sum of one of four types exists.

Significance

Theorem 2.3 gives a complete description of one round of $N$ on the stable set problem: the only new constraints are the odd hole constraints. Consequences:

• For $t$-perfect graphs (those for which nonnegativity, edge and odd hole constraints describe $\mathrm{STAB}(G)$), $N(G) = \mathrm{STAB}(G)$.
• It is the base case for the paper's bounds on the $N$-index of stable set inequalities (Theorem 2.13), and it contrasts with the semidefinite operator $N_+$, which after one round already satisfies clique, odd antihole and wheel constraints.
• Lemma 2.4 is a combinatorial feasibility criterion for systems with two variables per inequality, useful beyond this paper.

The result has been proved since 1991. At the time of drafting, Prove2Me holds no formalization of it or of any part of the Lovász–Schrijver construction, and Mathlib has none. The mission produces a formal account of the $N$ operator on the stable set polytope and a formal proof of the walk criterion for two-variable systems.

Difficulty

The inclusion of $N(G)$ in the odd hole system is a short argument once Lemma 1.3 is available. The reverse inclusion is the substance: given $x$ satisfying all odd hole constraints, one must exhibit a lifted matrix $Y$. A direct appeal to Farkas' lemma yields a certificate with no visible relation to odd cycles; the difficulty is to show that every obstruction to solvability of the matrix system forces a violated odd hole constraint, which is what Lemma 2.4 and the analysis of its four walk types accomplish. Case (d) of that analysis needs the odd hole constraints; the other cases need only the edge constraints. Lemma 2.4 itself is called folklore on the page and is stated without proof there.

A further point: Lemma 2.4 is stated for lower bounds $0 \le a$, while the lower bounds that arise from the matrix system, $x_i + x_j + x_k - 1$, can be negative.

Formalization scope

• Coordinates of $\mathbb{R}^{V\cup\{0\}}$ are indexed by Option V, with none the coordinate $x_0$. Graphs are Mathlib SimpleGraphs on a finite type $V$ with decidable adjacency. Every statement about a graph carries the paper's standing assumption that $G$ has no isolated nodes (∀ v, ∃ w, G.Adj v w).
• $M$ is defined by condition (iii), never by its rewritings. Lemma 1.3 and Lemma 2.2 take the cone $K$ closed, a hypothesis the paper leaves tacit (its cones are polyhedral); for a non-closed $K$ Lemma 1.3 is false. $\mathrm{FR}(G)$ is polyhedral, so the goal needs no such hypothesis.
• $\mathrm{FR}(G)$ is defined by its constraints; this agrees with the cone over $\mathrm{FRAC}(G)$ because $G$ has no isolated nodes.
• Lemma 2.2 is stated in cone form: $K$ is any closed convex cone inside $\mathrm{FR}(G)$, and validity is read on the slice $x_0 = 1$. The paper's extra hypothesis $\mathrm{STAB}(G) \subseteq K$ is dropped, which strengthens the lemma.
• Deletion and contraction of a node are coefficient vectors on the same graph (coefficients set to $0$), not inequalities on the subgraphs $G - v$ and $G - \Gamma(v) - v$.
• Odd holes are chordless odd cycles including triangles; triangles are needed, as $\tfrac12\mathbf 1$ satisfies all other constraints on a triangle.
• The matrix system of part (2) is stated as an equivalence; the page uses one direction.
• Lemma 2.4 uses edge values on unordered pairs and strict inequalities, exactly as printed.

A trivializing formalization is ruled out: the goal is the set equality for every graph without isolated nodes, not the existence of a lifted matrix and not a single graph.

Not formalized here: the semidefinite operator $N_+$, the operator $\hat N$, algorithmic statements (Theorems 1.6, 2.1, Corollary 2.5), and the set-function results of Section 3.

Reusable beyond this mission: the matrix cone layer ($Q$, $M$, $N$), the stable-set cones, and the two-variable feasibility criterion of Lemma 2.4. Contributions of any of the milestones, and of general facts about polar cones of polyhedral cones in this setting, are welcome.

Selected references

• L. Lovász and A. Schrijver, Cones of matrices and set-functions and 0–1 optimization, SIAM Journal on Optimization 1(2) (1991) 166–190. https://doi.org/10.1137/0801013
• M. Grötschel, L. Lovász and A. Schrijver, Geometric Algorithms and Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, 1988. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-97881-4
• H. D. Sherali and W. P. Adams, A hierarchy of relaxations between the continuous and convex hull representations for zero-one programming problems, SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics 3(3) (1990) 411–430. https://doi.org/10.1137/0403036

Motivation

Clique-width is a graph parameter introduced by Courcelle and Olariu (Discrete Appl. Math. 101 (2000)) that measures how far a graph is from being built by a few labelled operations. Every problem expressible in monadic second-order logic with quantification over vertices and vertex sets (MSO$_1$) can be solved in linear time on graphs given together with a decomposition of bounded clique-width (Courcelle, Makowsky and Rotics, Theory Comput. Syst. 33 (2000)). Bounded clique-width is more general than bounded tree-width: complete graphs have unbounded tree-width but clique-width $2$.

For fixed $k$ there was, before this paper, no polynomial-time algorithm that either decides that a graph has clique-width at least $k+1$ or outputs a decomposition of clique-width bounded by a function of $k$; the best known algorithm, by Johansson (2001), gave width $2k\log n$. Oum and Seymour (J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 96 (2006)) closed this gap with approximation $2^{3k+2}-1$, through rank-width and a factor-3 approximation for the branch-width of symmetric submodular functions.

Timeline:

• 1991: Robertson and Seymour introduce branch-width of graphs and hypergraphs (J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 52).
• 2000: Courcelle and Olariu define clique-width; Courcelle, Makowsky and Rotics solve MSO$_1$ problems on graphs given with a $k$-expression.
• 2001: Johansson gives a $2k\log n$ approximation.
• 2006: Oum and Seymour define rank-width, prove $\mathrm{rwd}(G) \le \mathrm{cwd}(G) \le 2^{\mathrm{rwd}(G)+1}-1$, and give an $O(n^9 \log n)$ algorithm that outputs a $(2^{3k+2}-1)$-expression or certifies clique-width above $k$.

Setting

All graphs are finite and simple. For a finite set $V$, a function $f : 2^V \to \mathbb{Z}$ is submodular if $f(X)+f(Y) \ge f(X\cap Y)+f(X\cup Y)$ and symmetric if $f(X) = f(V\setminus X)$.

A branch-decomposition of $f$ is a pair $(T, L)$ where $T$ is a tree with at least two vertices and all degrees at most $3$, and $L$ is a bijection from $V$ onto the leaves of $T$. Removing an edge $e$ of $T$ splits the leaves in two; the width of $e$ is $f$ of the set of elements of $V$ on one side. The width of $(T, L)$ is the largest edge width, and the branch-width $\mathrm{bw}(f)$ is the least width of a branch-decomposition, with $\mathrm{bw}(f) = f(\emptyset)$ when $|V| \le 1$.

A set $W \subseteq V$ is well-linked with respect to $f$ if for every partition $(X, Y)$ of $W$ and every $Z$ with $X \subseteq Z \subseteq V\setminus Y$, $f(Z) \ge \min(|X|, |Y|)$.

Let $A(G)$ be the adjacency matrix of $G$ over $\mathrm{GF}(2)$. For disjoint $X, Y \subseteq V(G)$, $\mathrm{cutrk}^*_G(X, Y)$ is the rank of the submatrix of $A(G)$ with rows $X$ and columns $Y$, and the cut-rank function is $\mathrm{cutrk}_G(X) = \mathrm{cutrk}^*_G(X, V(G)\setminus X)$. The rank-width $\mathrm{rwd}(G)$ is $\mathrm{bw}(\mathrm{cutrk}_G)$.

A $k$-expression is a term built from constants $\cdot_i$ (a vertex with label $i \in \{1,\dots,k\}$), the operators $\eta_{i,j}$ ($i \ne j$; add all edges between labels $i$ and $j$), $\rho_{i\to j}$ (relabel $i$ into $j$) and disjoint union $\oplus$. Its value is the labelled graph it produces; $G$ has clique-width $\mathrm{cwd}(G) \le k$ if some $k$-expression has value isomorphic to $G$.

An interpolation of $f$ is a function $f^*$ on disjoint pairs $(X, Y)$ that agrees with $f$ on $(X, V\setminus X)$, is monotone, submodular in the sense $f^*(A,B)+f^*(C,D) \ge f^*(A\cap C, B\cup D) + f^*(A\cup C, B\cap D)$, and has $f^*(\emptyset,\emptyset)=f(\emptyset)$.

Formalization targets

Goal: Theorem 1.1, certificate form

For a graph $G$ with at least one vertex and an integer $k \ge 1$:

$$\exists\, W,\ |W| = 3k+1,\ W \text{ well-linked for } \mathrm{cutrk}_G \;\Longrightarrow\; \mathrm{cwd}(G) \ge k+1,$$ $$\nexists\, W,\ |W| = 3k+1,\ W \text{ well-linked for } \mathrm{cutrk}_G \;\Longrightarrow\; \mathrm{cwd}(G) \le 2^{3k+2}-1.$$

The same explicit condition decides which side of the approximation holds; this is what the paper's algorithm certifies.

Milestones

1. Proposition 4.1: properties of an interpolation, including that $X \mapsto f^*(X, B) - f(\emptyset)$ is a matroid rank function on $V\setminus B$ when $f(\{v\}) - f(\emptyset) \le 1$.
2. Proposition 4.2: $f_{\min}(X,Y) = \min_{X\subseteq Z\subseteq V\setminus Y} f(Z)$ is an interpolation.
3. Theorem 5.1: a well-linked set of size $k$ forces $\mathrm{bw}(f) \ge k/3$ (for $k \ne 1$).
4. Theorem 5.2: no well-linked set of size $k$ implies $\mathrm{bw}(f) \le k$, when $f(\{v\}) \le 1$.
5. Proposition 6.1: $\mathrm{rk}\,M[X_1,Y_1] + \mathrm{rk}\,M[X_2,Y_2] \ge \mathrm{rk}\,M[X_1\cup X_2, Y_1\cap Y_2] + \mathrm{rk}\,M[X_1\cap X_2, Y_1\cup Y_2]$.
6. Corollary 6.2: submodularity of $\mathrm{cutrk}^*_G$ and $\mathrm{cutrk}_G$.
7. Section 6 claim: $\mathrm{cutrk}_G$ is symmetric submodular and $\mathrm{cutrk}^*_G$ interpolates it.
8. Proposition 6.3: $\mathrm{rwd}(G) \le \mathrm{cwd}(G) \le 2^{\mathrm{rwd}(G)+1}-1$.

Significance

The dichotomy turns clique-width, for which no exact polynomial algorithm is known even for fixed $k$, into a parameter that can be approximated with an explicit witness in each direction. Downstream, every algorithm for graphs of bounded clique-width that needs a $k$-expression as input becomes applicable to graphs given without one, at the cost of an exponential blow-up of the width.

The result is proved in the literature; this mission formalizes it. To our knowledge none of the objects involved — branch-width of set functions, rank-width, cut-rank, $k$-expressions, clique-width — has been formalized in Mathlib, and the submodularity of submatrix rank (Proposition 6.1) is absent from Mathlib's Matrix.rank API. The formal development would give reusable definitions of branch-decompositions of arbitrary integer set functions, of cut-rank, and of clique-width, and a machine-checked link between the combinatorial and the linear-algebraic width parameters.

Difficulty

The upper bound in Theorem 5.2 is the core. The natural approach, growing a branch-decomposition one leaf split at a time while keeping the width at most $k$, gets stuck at a leaf carrying a set $B$ with $f(B) = k$: a split of $B$ into two parts of $f$-value below $k$ has to be found, and it must be found from the failure of well-linkedness of a set that is not obviously related to $B$. The paper's device is the interpolation $f^*$, which attaches a matroid to $B$ whose base has exactly $f(B)$ elements. Formalizing this requires handling partial branch-decompositions, their extensions, and a maximality argument over trees, none of which exists in Mathlib.

Proposition 6.3's upper bound is a second, independent difficulty: a rank-decomposition must be converted into a $k$-expression by an induction over a rooted binary tree, with a relabelling argument bounding the number of labels by the number of distinct nonzero rows of a $\mathrm{GF}(2)$ matrix of rank $k$. Its lower bound needs the tree structure of a $k$-expression to be read as a branch-decomposition.

Formalization scope

The ground set is a Fintype V with DecidableEq V; subsets are Finset V; set functions are Finset V → ℤ, as in the paper. A branch-decomposition is a tree T : SimpleGraph (Fin n) with $n \ge 2$, all neighbour sets of size at most $3$, and an injective map $L$ from $V$ onto the vertices of degree $1$; the side of an edge $uw$ is found by reachability from $u$ after deleting $uw$. Branch-width, rank-width and clique-width are never computed as minima: "$\mathrm{bw}(f) \le k$" is the predicate "$|V| \le 1$ and $f(\emptyset) \le k$, or a branch-decomposition of width at most $k$ exists", lower bounds say that every branch-decomposition has a wide edge, and "$\mathrm{cwd}(G) \le k$" is "$G$ has a $k$-expression". Labels $\{1,\dots,k\}$ are Fin k. The value of a $k$-expression has as vertex type the occurrences of constants (a nested sum type), and $\eta_{i,j}$ requires $i \ne j$. Cut-rank uses Matrix.rank over ZMod 2 of submatrices of SimpleGraph.adjMatrix. An interpolation is a function on all pairs of subsets whose axioms are imposed on disjoint pairs only.

Running time is not formalized. The paper's Theorem 1.1 asserts an $O(n^9\log n)$ algorithm; there is no cost model on the page, and the goal states the certificate the algorithm returns instead. Without the running time, "$\mathrm{cwd}(G) \ge k+1$ or $\mathrm{cwd}(G) \le 2^{3k+2}-1$" holds for every graph, so that reading is ruled out as a formalization of the goal; so are well-linkedness with respect to anything other than $\mathrm{cutrk}_G$, widths defined by an unguarded infimum (which is $0$ on an empty family), $k$-expressions whose value is not the graph up to isomorphism or whose $\eta$ may join equal labels, and Theorem 5.1 stated for $k = 1$.

Correction of Theorem 5.1. As printed, Theorem 5.1 fails for $k = 1$: a singleton is always well-linked, but the edgeless graph on two vertices has cut-rank identically $0$ and branch-width $0 < 1/3$. The milestone carries the hypothesis $k \ne 1$; the goal uses the theorem only at size $3k+1 \ge 4$.

The graph with no vertex is excluded from the goal and from the upper bound of Proposition 6.3, since it has no $k$-expression for any $k$. Contributions welcome: proofs of the milestones, lemmas on branch-decompositions (suppressing degree-2 vertices, extending partial decompositions), and submatrix-rank submodularity, which is reusable beyond this mission.

Selected references

• S. Oum and P. Seymour, Approximating clique-width and branch-width, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 96 (2006) 514–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jctb.2005.10.006
• B. Courcelle and S. Olariu, Upper bounds to the clique width of graphs, Discrete Appl. Math. 101 (2000) 77–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-218X(99)00184-5
• B. Courcelle, J. A. Makowsky and U. Rotics, Linear time solvable optimization problems on graphs of bounded clique-width, Theory Comput. Syst. 33 (2000) 125–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002249910009
• N. Robertson and P. D. Seymour, Graph minors. X. Obstructions to tree-decomposition, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 52 (1991) 153–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/0095-8956(91)90061-N

Motivation

Firms that sell new products (consoles, books, films) often take preorders before release. A preorder serves two purposes at once. It lets the firm charge early adopters a different price from later buyers, a form of price discrimination, and the number of preorders is advance demand information: an early signal of how large regular-season demand will be. Li and Zhang (MSOM 15(1), 2013) ask whether better advance information always helps a seller who runs a preorder, when consumers are strategic and anticipate the seller's stocking decision. Their answer is no. The second-period stocking decision improves, but the preorder price can fall. Whether the net effect is positive depends on the low-type margin and the size of the early-adopter segment.

This mission formalizes that answer, §4 of the paper: the preorder profit as a function of the demand correlation $\rho$.

Setting

A seller sells a perishable product over two periods. High-type consumers, with valuation $v_H$, arrive in the first period and may preorder at price $p_1$. Low-type consumers, with valuation $v_L < v_H$, arrive in the second period, when the price is $p_2$. A high type who waits values the product at $\delta v_H$, where $\delta \le 1$ and $\delta v_H > v_L$. The unit cost is $c$, with $0 < c < v_L$. Unsold units have no salvage value and unmet demand carries no penalty. Write $\Delta = \delta v_H - v_L$.

The demands are jointly normal with correlation $\rho \in [0,1)$. The high-type demand has mean $\mu_H$, and $X$ denotes its standardization, a standard normal variable. The low-type demand has mean $\mu_L$, standard deviation $\sigma_L$ and $\lambda_L = \mu_L/\sigma_L$. Given $X = x$, the updated low-type demand $\tilde X_L(x)$ is normal with mean $\tilde\mu_L(x) = \mu_L + \rho\sigma_L x$ and standard deviation $\tilde\sigma_L = \sigma_L\sqrt{1-\rho^2}$. $\Phi$ and $\phi$ are the standard normal distribution function and density, and $z_L$ solves $\Phi(z_L) = (v_L - c)/v_L$.

In the second period the seller charges $p_2 = v_L$ and solves a newsvendor problem. It orders

$$Q(x) = \tilde\mu_L(x) + z_L\tilde\sigma_L \qquad (1)$$

and earns $\Pi_L(x) = (v_L - c)(\mu_L + \rho\sigma_L x) - v_L\phi(z_L)\sigma_L\sqrt{1-\rho^2}$ (2). A waiting high type believes half of the remaining consumers will be served before her, so her belief of product availability is

$$\xi(\rho) = \mathbb E\Big[\Pr\Big(\tfrac{\tilde X_L(X)}{2} < Q(X)\Big)\Big]. \qquad (3)$$

In the rational-expectations equilibrium every high type preorders at $p_1 = v_H - \Delta\xi$. The preorder profit is

$$\Pi^p(\rho) = (v_H - \Delta\xi(\rho) - c)\mu_H + \Pi_L(0). \qquad (4)$$

The threshold is

$$\tilde\mu(\rho) = -\frac{v_L\phi(z_L)\sigma_L}{2\Delta z_L\,\phi\big(2z_L\sqrt{1-\rho^2} + \lambda_L\big)}. \qquad (6)$$

Formalization targets

Goal: PROPOSITION 2

$$\begin{aligned} &\text{(i) } c < v_L < 2c:\ \Pi^p \text{ strictly increases on every interval where } \mu_H < \tilde\mu(\rho),\\ &\qquad\text{and strictly decreases on every interval where } \mu_H \ge \tilde\mu(\rho);\\ &\text{(ii) } v_L \ge 2c:\ \Pi^p \text{ strictly increases on } [0,1). \end{aligned}$$

Milestones

1. (1)–(2): $Q(x)$ is the unique maximizer of $\mathbb E[v_L\min(Q,\tilde X_L(x)) - cQ]$, and its value is $\Pi_L(x)$.
2. (3): $\xi(\rho) = \mathbb E\big[\Phi\big((\lambda_L + \rho X)/\sqrt{1-\rho^2} + 2z_L\big)\big]$.
3. LEMMA 1(i): if $c < v_L < 2c$, then $z_L < 0$ and $\xi$ is strictly increasing in $\rho$.
4. LEMMA 1(ii): if $v_L \ge 2c$, then $z_L \ge 0$ and $\xi$ is non-increasing in $\rho$, strictly so when $v_L > 2c$.
5. After (5): $\dfrac{d}{d\rho}\Pi_L(0) = v_L\phi(z_L)\sigma_L\,\rho/\sqrt{1-\rho^2} > 0$ for $\rho \in (0,1)$.
6. PROPOSITION 2(i), pointwise: for $\rho \in (0,1)$, $d\Pi^p/d\rho > 0 \iff \mu_H < \tilde\mu(\rho)$ and $d\Pi^p/d\rho < 0 \iff \mu_H > \tilde\mu(\rho)$.
7. LEMMA 2(i): if $-\lambda_L/2 < z_L < 0$, then $\tilde\mu$ is strictly increasing in $\rho$.
8. LEMMA 2(ii): if $z_L \le -\lambda_L/2$, then $\tilde\mu$ is quasi-convex in $\rho$.

Significance

The proposition splits the value of advance demand information into two effects with opposite signs. Better information always raises the second-period profit (milestone 5). Its effect on the preorder price depends on the margin. When $v_L < 2c$, the seller stocks below the conditional mean. A more precise forecast then raises the stock and the availability $\xi$, and waiting becomes more attractive, which lowers the preorder price. The threshold $\tilde\mu(\rho)$ says which effect wins, and LEMMA 2 describes its shape. This is the basis for the paper's later comparisons of preorder, price-guarantee and no-preorder strategies.

The paper states these results and leaves the proofs to an online appendix. None of them has a machine-checked proof. A complete development would also give reusable facts about normal laws: the expectation $\mathbb E[\Phi(a + bX)]$ for standard normal $X$, the normal newsvendor solution with its closed-form optimal profit, and derivatives of Gaussian integrals with respect to a correlation parameter.

Difficulty

The model is explicit, so the difficulty is not in modelling. It is in turning the two expectations into closed forms and differentiating them. The availability $\xi$ is an integral over $X$ of a normal probability whose mean and variance both move with $\rho$. The expected newsvendor profit involves $\mathbb E[\min(Q, Y)]$ for a normal $Y$. Neither closed form is in Mathlib, and neither is a derivative in $\rho$ of a Gaussian integral. The obvious route, differentiating under the integral sign in (3), needs domination estimates that are uniform in $\rho$ near each point, and these degenerate as $\rho \to 1$.

Signs are the second difficulty. $z_L$ changes sign at $v_L = 2c$, $\tilde\mu$ carries a leading minus and divides by $z_L$, and the derivative of $\Pi^p$ vanishes at $\rho = 0$ and wherever $\tilde\mu(\rho) = \mu_H$. Strict monotonicity on an interval has to be recovered from a derivative that is positive except at finitely many points.

Formalization scope

Everything lives in the namespace PreorderADI.Correlation. A structure Params holds $v_H, v_L, c, \delta, \mu_H, \mu_L, \sigma_L, z_L$. The predicate Params.Standing records the model's assumptions: $v_H > v_L$, $c < v_L$, $\delta \le 1$ and $\delta v_H > v_L$, together with $\Phi(z_L) = (v_L-c)/v_L$. $\sigma_H$ is omitted because nothing in §4 uses it after standardization. $\Phi$ is ProbabilityTheory.cdf (gaussianReal 0 1) and $\phi$ is gaussianPDFReal 0 1. The normal law with mean $m$ and standard deviation $s$ is gaussianReal m (s^2).

The formalization commits to the following conventions and additions:

• Added hypotheses. Four hypotheses are added to the page's assumptions:
  • $c > 0$, so that $z_L$ exists;
  • $\sigma_L > 0$, so that the conditional law is a genuine normal law;
  • $\mu_L > 0$, so that $\lambda_L > 0$, as LEMMA 2 presupposes;
  • $\mu_H > 0$, which PROPOSITION 2(ii) needs.
• $z_L$. $z_L$ is a parameter pinned down by $\Phi(z_L) = (v_L-c)/v_L$, not an inverse function with junk values.
• Range of $\rho$. $\rho$ ranges over $[0,1)$, the paper's "we will focus on $\rho \ge 0$" together with $\rho < 1$. Derivative statements use $(0,1)$.
• $\xi$ and $\Pi^p$. $\xi$ is defined as the first expression of (3), the expected probability, so that no closed form is assumed. $\Pi^p$ is defined by (4). PROPOSITION 1, which derives (4) as the unique equilibrium profit, is not formalized: the paper defines the equilibrium only through conditions that already assume every high type preorders.
• Monotonicity. "Increases in $\rho$ when $\mu_H < \tilde\mu(\rho)$" is formalized as strict monotonicity on every order-connected $I \subseteq [0,1)$ on which the condition holds. "Decreasing" in LEMMA 1(ii) is non-strict, since $\xi$ is constant when $v_L = 2c$. Quasi-convexity is Mathlib's QuasiconvexOn.
• The ε_v sentence is omitted. PROPOSITION 2(i) also claims that some $\varepsilon_v > 0$ makes $\Pi^p$ always decrease when $v_L < c + \varepsilon_v$. That claim is false in the paper's own model. As $v_L \downarrow c$, $\tilde\mu(\rho) \to \infty$ for $\rho$ below roughly $\sqrt 3/2$, so $\Pi^p$ increases there for every fixed $\mu_H$. The paper's Figure 1 shows the same behaviour.
• Out of scope. §5 rests on an approximation that treats normal demands as nonnegative, so it is excluded. §§6–7 depend on models given only in the online appendix and are excluded too.

A statement about the closed form $\Phi(\lambda_L + 2z_L\sqrt{1-\rho^2})$ in place of $\xi$ would make LEMMA 1 a one-line monotonicity fact. So would a definition of $\Pi^p$ that bypasses (3). The definitions rule both out.

Welcome contributions include proofs of the milestones, general Mathlib-style lemmas on Gaussian expectations of $\Phi$ and of $\min(Q, Y)$, and a formalization of PROPOSITION 1 from conditions (i)–(v).

Selected references

• C. Li and F. Zhang, Advance Demand Information, Price Discrimination, and Preorder Strategies, Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 15(1):57–71, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.1120.0398
• G. P. Cachon and R. Swinney, Purchasing, Pricing, and Quick Response in the Presence of Strategic Consumers, Management Science 55(3):497–511, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0948
• X. Su and F. Zhang, On the Value of Commitment and Availability Guarantees When Selling to Strategic Consumers, Management Science 55(5):713–726, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0967

Motivation

Value-at-Risk (VaR) is the loss level that a portfolio exceeds with probability at most $\varepsilon$. It is the standard risk measure of banking regulation, and its classical computation assumes Gaussian returns: for a Gaussian return vector with mean $\hat x$ and covariance $\Gamma$ it equals $-\Phi^{-1}(\varepsilon)\sqrt{w^\top\Gamma w} - \hat x^\top w$, where $\Phi$ is the standard normal distribution function. Real returns are not exactly Gaussian, and a VaR computed from a misspecified distribution can badly understate risk.

El Ghaoui, Oks and Oustry (Oper. Res. 51(4), 2003) replace the single distribution by a class $\mathcal P$ of distributions and define the worst-case VaR as the smallest loss level whose probability is at most $\varepsilon$ under every distribution of the class. Their first class, distributions with a given mean and covariance, leads to the Chebyshev-type bound of their Theorem 1, whose worst case is attained by discrete distributions. §4.2 of the paper asks instead for distributions that stay close to a Gaussian, measured by relative entropy (Kullback–Leibler divergence). Such balls are the basic uncertainty sets of distributionally robust optimization and of robust control in economics (Hansen and Sargent's multiplier and constraint preferences), and they give a smooth worst case. Theorem 9 computes the resulting worst-case VaR in closed form.

Setting

Returns are random vectors $x \in \mathbb R^n$ and a portfolio is a vector $w \in \mathbb R^n$ with $w \neq 0$; its return is $r(w,x) = w^\top x$. For a level $\gamma \in \mathbb R$ the loss set is $\mathcal S_\gamma = \{x : \gamma \le -x^\top w\}$ (Eq. 13 of the paper).

Given a class $\mathcal P$ of probability distributions on $\mathbb R^n$ and $\varepsilon \in (0,1)$, the worst-case Value-at-Risk (Eq. 4) is

$$V_{\mathcal P}(w) = \min\Big\{\gamma \in \mathbb R : \sup_{P \in \mathcal P} P(\mathcal S_\gamma) \le \varepsilon\Big\}.$$

Fix a mean $\hat x \in \mathbb R^n$ and a positive definite covariance $\Gamma \succ 0$, and let $P_0 = \mathcal N(\hat x, \Gamma)$ be the reference Gaussian. For $d \ge 0$ the relative-entropy class (Eq. 43) is

$$\mathcal P_d = \Big\{P \text{ probability on } \mathbb R^n : \mathrm{KL}(P, P_0) = \int \log\frac{dP}{dP_0}\,dP \le d\Big\},$$

with $\mathrm{KL}(P,P_0) = +\infty$ unless $P$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $P_0$.

The risk factor (Eq. 45) is

$$f(\varepsilon,d) = \sup_{\lambda>0}\frac{e^{\varepsilon/\lambda - d} - 1}{e^{1/\lambda} - 1}, \qquad \kappa(\varepsilon,d) = -\Phi^{-1}\big(f(\varepsilon,d)\big),$$

and the Gaussian tail of the loss set is $\phi(\gamma) = P_0(\mathcal S_\gamma) = 1 - \Phi\big((\gamma + w^\top\hat x)/\sqrt{w^\top\Gamma w}\big)$.

Formalization targets

Goal: Theorem 9 (p. 553)

For $\Gamma \succ 0$, $w \neq 0$, $d \ge 0$ and $0 < \varepsilon < 1$, the minimum in (4) over $\mathcal P_d$ exists and

$$V_{\mathcal P_d}(w) = \kappa(\varepsilon,d)\sqrt{w^\top\Gamma w} - \hat x^\top w. \tag{44}$$

Milestones

The milestones follow the proof of Theorem 9 on pp. 553–554, in attack order.

1. Eq. (45). The two expressions of $f$ agree: $\sup_{\lambda>0}\frac{e^{\varepsilon/\lambda-d}-1}{e^{1/\lambda}-1} = \sup_{v>0}\frac{e^{-d}(v+1)^\varepsilon - 1}{v}$.
2. Gaussian tail. $P_0(\mathcal S_\gamma) = 1 - \Phi\big((\gamma + w^\top\hat x)/\sqrt{w^\top\Gamma w}\big)$.
3. Eq. (47). For $\lambda > 0$, the Lagrangian $L(Q) = Q(\mathcal S_\gamma) + \lambda_0(1 - Q(\mathbb R^n)) + \lambda(d - \mathrm{KL}\text{-integral})$ is maximised over finite measures $Q \ll P_0$ by the exponentially tilted density $dQ^\star/dP_0 = \exp((\chi_{\mathcal S} - \lambda_0)/\lambda - 1)$, with value

$$\theta(\lambda_0,\lambda) = \lambda_0 + \lambda d + \lambda e^{-\lambda_0/\lambda - 1}\big((e^{1/\lambda}-1)\phi(\gamma) + 1\big).$$

4. Eq. (48). $\min_{\lambda_0\in\mathbb R}\theta(\lambda_0,\lambda) = \lambda d + \lambda\log\big((e^{1/\lambda}-1)\phi(\gamma)+1\big)$.
5. Duality. $\sup_{P\in\mathcal P_d} P(\mathcal S_\gamma) = \inf_{\lambda>0}\big(\lambda d + \lambda\log((e^{1/\lambda}-1)\phi(\gamma)+1)\big)$.
6. Inversion. For $d > 0$: some $\lambda > 0$ makes the dual value at most $\varepsilon$ if and only if $\gamma \ge \kappa(\varepsilon,d)\sqrt{w^\top\Gamma w} - w^\top\hat x$.
7. Remark after Theorem 9. $f(\varepsilon, 0) = \varepsilon$, so $\kappa(\varepsilon,0) = -\Phi^{-1}(\varepsilon)$. The risk factor $\kappa(\varepsilon, d)$ is strictly increasing in $d \ge 0$.

Significance

Theorem 9 says that an entropy ball around a Gaussian leaves the form of the Gaussian VaR unchanged: only the risk factor moves, from $-\Phi^{-1}(\varepsilon)$ to $\kappa(\varepsilon,d)$, a scalar computed by a one-dimensional maximisation. The worst-case VaR therefore stays a convex function of $w$ whenever $\kappa \ge 0$, and minimising it over a polytope of portfolios is a second-order cone program (problem (3) of the paper). The number $f(\varepsilon,d)$ is the largest $p$ with $\mathrm{KL}(\mathrm{Bernoulli}(\varepsilon)\,\|\,\mathrm{Bernoulli}(p)) \le d$, which ties the result to the binary-divergence bounds used throughout information theory.

The theorem was proved in 2003. The worst-case-probability step (milestone 5) is an instance of the Donsker–Varadhan / Gibbs variational duality for relative-entropy balls, which the paper imports from the literature (Smith 1995). No machine-checked proof of Theorem 9 or of this duality on $\mathbb R^n$ is known. A formalization would give a verified closed form for a relative-entropy distributionally robust chance constraint, and the duality and tilting lemmas would serve any mission on KL-ball robust optimization.

Difficulty

The obvious argument is Lagrangian duality for the infinite-dimensional problem $\sup\{P(\mathcal S_\gamma) : \mathrm{KL}(P,P_0) \le d\}$. Weak duality and the pointwise maximisation that produces the tilted density are elementary. The difficulty is the step the paper cites rather than proves: that the duality gap is zero, and that the supremum over distributions equals the infimum of the dual over $\lambda > 0$. The feasible set is a set of measures, the objective is an indicator, and the constraint is a divergence that is $+\infty$ off a set of absolutely continuous measures, so a finite-dimensional Slater argument does not apply as stated.

The second difficulty is at the boundary of the parameters. At $d = 0$ the supremum defining $f(\varepsilon,0)$ is approached only as $\lambda \to \infty$, so the final inversion step behaves differently from $d > 0$. At $\varepsilon = 1$ the theorem is false, since every level $\gamma$ is feasible and (4) has no minimum.

Formalization scope

Returns live in EuclideanSpace ℝ (Fin n). $P_0$ is Mathlib's multivariateGaussian xhat Γ with Γ.PosDef, and $\mathrm{KL}$ is InformationTheory.klDiv, which is $\infty$ unless $P \ll P_0$ with integrable log-likelihood ratio and equals $\int\log\frac{dP}{dP_0}\,dP$ otherwise for probability measures. The class $\mathcal P_d$ requires IsProbabilityMeasure P. $\Phi$ is cdf (gaussianReal 0 1), and $\Phi^{-1}(p)$ is defined as $\inf\{t : p \le \Phi(t)\}$, which inverts $\Phi$ on $(0,1)$. The quadratic form $w^\top\Gamma w$ is a double sum, and $\|\Gamma^{1/2}w\|_2$ is written $\sqrt{w^\top\Gamma w}$.

Conventions the Lean statements commit to:

• "min" in (4) is IsLeast of the feasible set $\{\gamma : P(\mathcal S_\gamma) \le \varepsilon \ \forall P \in \mathcal P_d\}$. "$\sup_{P}P(\mathcal S_\gamma) \le \varepsilon$" is written "for every $P$", with probabilities compared in $[0,\infty]$.
• The paper prints $\varepsilon \in (0,1]$. The mission assumes $0 < \varepsilon < 1$, because the goal is false at $\varepsilon = 1$.
• $w \neq 0$ is the paper's assumption that the admissible set of portfolios excludes $0$.
• $f(\varepsilon,d)$ is a Lean sSup of a set that is nonempty and bounded above by $1$ for $\varepsilon \le 1$, $d \ge 0$.
• The duality of milestone 5 is stated as the existence of one real number that is both the least upper bound of the worst-case probabilities and the greatest lower bound of the dual values, not as an equality of Lean's sSup and sInf.
• Eq. (48) is stated as an attained minimum (IsLeast), which the calculus gives.
• Milestone 3 works with finite measures $Q \ll P_0$ with integrable log-likelihood ratio in place of the paper's densities $p$. It uses the complement of $\mathcal S_\gamma$ where the paper writes $\{\gamma \ge -x^\top w\}$, which differs by a $P_0$-null hyperplane.
• Milestone 6 assumes $d > 0$; the goal keeps $d \ge 0$.

Restricting $\mathcal P_d$ to $\{P_0\}$, dropping IsProbabilityMeasure, or taking an arbitrary reference measure would trivialize or change the theorem. The class is the full KL ball around the nondegenerate Gaussian.

Infrastructure a complete development needs: the pushforward of a multivariate Gaussian under a linear functional (a one-dimensional Gaussian), the Gibbs variational principle for relative entropy, the strong duality for KL balls, and properties of $\Phi$ and its quantile (continuity, strict monotonicity, symmetry $\Phi(-t) = 1 - \Phi(t)$). The Gaussian-quantile and KL-ball duality lemmas are reusable beyond this mission. Contributions of any of these as separate lemmas are welcome.

Selected references

• L. El Ghaoui, M. Oks, F. Oustry, Worst-Case Value-at-Risk and Robust Portfolio Optimization: A Conic Programming Approach, Operations Research 51(4):543–556, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.51.4.543.16101
• J. E. Smith, Generalized Chebychev Inequalities: Theory and Applications in Decision Analysis, Operations Research 43(5):807–825, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.43.5.807
• M. D. Donsker, S. R. S. Varadhan, Asymptotic evaluation of certain Markov process expectations for large time, I, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 28(1):1–47, 1975. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.3160280102
• L. P. Hansen, T. J. Sargent, Robust Control and Model Uncertainty, American Economic Review 91(2):60–66, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.91.2.60

Motivation

Integer programming asks whether a system of linear inequalities $Ax\le b$ has a solution $x\in\mathbb Z^n$. In fixed dimension $n$ it is solvable in polynomial time: Lenstra (1983) proved this by showing that a convex body without integer points is "flat" in some integral direction, so that the search splits into few lower-dimensional subproblems. Kannan's 1987 paper in Mathematics of Operations Research sharpened this approach. It computes a Korkine–Zolotarev ("reduced") basis of a lattice, solves the shortest and closest vector problems exactly in $n^{O(n)}$ operations, and runs integer programming in $O(n^{9n/2}s)$ arithmetic operations. Underneath the algorithm sits a purely geometric statement, Theorem (5.5): a lattice-free convex body meets only boundedly many integer translates of some integral subspace.

Timeline.

• Korkine and Zolotareff (1873): the reduced bases used here.
• Minkowski (1896): a symmetric convex body of volume greater than $2^n$ contains a nonzero integer point.
• Khinchine (1948): lattice-free convex bodies have lattice width bounded by a function of $n$ alone (the flatness theorem).
• Lenstra (1983): integer programming in fixed dimension is polynomial, via a flat direction.
• Kannan (1987, this paper): Theorem (5.5), with subspaces $V$ of any dimension between $1$ and $n-1$ and an explicit bound $n^{2(n-\dim V)}$.
• Kannan and Lovász (1988), Banaszczyk et al. (1999), and later work: polynomial bounds on the flatness constant.

Setting

$\mathcal R^n$ is Euclidean space with dot product $(a,b)$ and length $|a|$, and $\mathbb Z^n$ is the set of integer vectors. For linearly independent $b_1,\dots,b_m\in\mathcal R^k$, the lattice $L(b_1,\dots,b_m)$ is the set of integer combinations $\sum_j\lambda_jb_j$, $\lambda_j\in\mathbb Z$, and $b_1,\dots,b_m$ is a basis. Gram–Schmidt orthogonalisation gives $b_1^*,\dots,b_m^*$ and unit vectors $u_j=b_j^*/|b_j^*|$, and $b_i(j)=(b_i,u_j)$, so $b_i=\sum_jb_i(j)u_j$ and $b_j(j)=|b_j^*|$. The determinant is $d(L)=\prod_j|b_j^*|$. $\Lambda_1(L)$ is the length of a shortest nonzero vector of $L$. The projected lattice $L_j(b_1,\dots,b_m)$ is the image of $L$ under orthogonal projection onto the complement of $\operatorname{span}(b_1,\dots,b_{j-1})$. A basis is reduced (Definition 2.6) if $b_j(j)=\Lambda_1(L_j)$ for every $j$ and $|b_i(j)|\le b_j(j)/2$ for $i>j$.

A convex body is a convex set of positive volume, which for a convex set means nonempty interior. A subspace $V$ has a basis of integer vectors if it is the real span of integer vectors. Its integer translates are the sets $z+V$ with $z\in\mathbb Z^n$.

In Lean, $\mathcal R^k$ is EuclideanSpace ℝ (Fin k), a basis is b : Fin m → EuclideanSpace ℝ (Fin k), the lattice is lattice b = Submodule.span ℤ (Set.range b), $|b_j^*|$ is gsLen b j, $b_i(j)$ is gsCoeff b i j, $d(L)$ is latticeDet b, $\Lambda_1$ is lambdaOne, $L_{j+1}$ is projLattice b j, and a reduced basis is IsReduced b.

Formalization targets

Goal: Theorem (5.5), corrected reading

For $n\ge2$ and every bounded convex set $K\subseteq\mathcal R^n$ with nonempty interior and $K\cap\mathbb Z^n=\emptyset$ there is a subspace $V$ spanned by integer vectors with $1\le\dim V\le n-1$ and

$$\#\{\,z+V : z\in\mathbb Z^n,\ (z+V)\cap K\ne\emptyset\,\}\ \le\ n^{2(n-\dim V)}.$$

The printed theorem allows "an $i$ dimensional space $V$" with $1\le i\le n$ and bound $n^{2(n-i+1)}$. Taken literally that is trivial ($V=\mathcal R^n$, one translate). The proof on the same page takes $V=\operatorname{span}(b_1,\dots,b_{i-1})$, of dimension $i-1$, and remarks that this "ensures that the subspace $V$ is always of dimension at least 1". The goal states that reading.

Milestones

1. Theorem (1.11), Minkowski's convex body theorem (referenced from the platform, in Mathlib's general form).
2. Theorem (1.12): every $m$-dimensional lattice has a nonzero vector with $|v|\le\sqrt m\,d(L)^{1/m}$.
3. Proposition 1.9: a primitive lattice vector belongs to some basis.
4. Proposition 2.16, existence form: every lattice has a reduced basis.
5. Proposition 4.2: for any $b_0$ with projection $\bar b_0$ onto the span, some $b\in L$ has $|b-\bar b_0|\le\frac12(\sum_jb_j(j)^2)^{1/2}\le\frac{\sqrt m}2\max_jb_j(j)$.
6. Proposition 4.3: for a reduced basis and $i$ maximising $b_i(i)$, the tail $(\lambda_i,\dots,\lambda_m)$ of every closest lattice point to $b_0$ lies in an explicit set of at most $m^{m-i+1}$ integer vectors.

Significance

Theorem (5.5) is a structural form of the flatness theorem. For $\dim V=n-1$ it says that a lattice-free convex body meets fewer than $n^2$ consecutive integer hyperplanes of some integral direction. For smaller $\dim V$ it gives a finer decomposition of $\mathbb Z^n$ into translates, each a lower-dimensional integer program. This is the recursion behind fixed-dimension integer programming, and statements of this form are used in lattice-point enumeration, in the geometry of numbers (covering minima), and in cutting-plane theory (lattice-free bodies define split and intersection cuts). Propositions 4.2 and 4.3 are the correctness core of exact closest-vector enumeration.

The results are proved in the literature, though Theorem (5.5) is proved "albeit sketchily" in the paper itself. As far as is known, none of them is formalized: Mathlib has Minkowski's convex body theorem and the ZLattice API, but not Gram–Schmidt lattice invariants, Korkine–Zolotarev bases, Hermite-type bounds, nearest-plane rounding, or any flatness theorem. This mission produces the first machine-checked versions. It also corrects three statements that are wrong as printed (below), so the formal statements are the ones that can be relied on.

Difficulty

The naive route to (5.5) is to take a flat direction directly: bound the lattice width of $K$ and count hyperplanes. That needs a flatness theorem with an explicit bound below $n^2$, which is itself the hard part. The paper's argument instead needs John's theorem (every convex body lies between an ellipsoid and its $n$-fold dilation), a reduced basis of the transformed lattice, and a counting argument across projected lattices that combines Minkowski's bound on each $L_i$ with the covering estimate of Proposition 4.2. None of John's theorem, reduced bases or the projected-lattice counting is in Mathlib.

Proposition 4.3 is also delicate as printed: the per-coordinate count on p. 24 undercounts the integers in a closed interval, so the printed arithmetic cannot be transcribed as it stands. Proposition 2.16 in the paper is the correctness of the algorithm SHORTEST. Here only the existence of a reduced basis is needed, which requires attainment of $\Lambda_1$ on every projected lattice and a lifting argument (Proposition 1.9).

Formalization scope

Conventions: indices are 0-based (Fin m), so the paper's $L_j$ is projLattice b (j-1) and its bound $n^{n-i+1}$ is m ^ (m - i). Gram–Schmidt is Mathlib's unnormalised gramSchmidt. Lattices are Submodule ℤs of a real Euclidean space generated by a linearly independent family, and $m\le k$ is allowed, because (1.12) and 4.2 are applied to projected lattices. The goal counts translates as sets with Set.encard, so the bound includes finiteness. $K$ is assumed convex, bounded and with nonempty interior, but not closed.

Three printed statements are corrected, and the corrections are recorded in each item's Formalization Note.

• (1.12)'s constant $\frac12\sqrt n$ is false for $n\le7$ (for example $L=\mathbb Z$, or the hexagonal lattice) and is replaced by $\sqrt n$, the constant the paper's own later proofs use.
• Proposition 4.2's second sentence is stated for $\bar b_0$ instead of $b_0$.
• Proposition 4.3 fails at $n=1$ and is stated for $m\ge2$ with the proof's explicit candidate set $T$, since an existential $T$ is satisfied by the set of tails of closest points and says nothing.

Trivializing formalizations are ruled out: the goal forbids $\dim V=n$, which gives one translate, and $\dim V=0$, where no translate meets $K$. It requires nonempty interior (the empty set would satisfy everything) and counts with encard (an infinite count cannot become $0$).

Out of scope: the paper's algorithms (SHORTEST, SELECT-BASIS, ENUMERATE, CLP, CLP′, ILP) and their operation and bit counts (Theorems 2.17, 3.9, 4.5, 5.4), because Mathlib has no cost model. Also out of scope is §6 (NP-completeness of the $L_2$ closest vector problem and Cook reductions), because Mathlib has no complexity classes. The definitions of this mission (lattice, gsLen, gsCoeff, latticeDet, lambdaOne, projLattice, IsReduced) are reusable for any later work on lattice reduction. Contributions are welcome at every level: John's theorem, Hermite-type bounds, Korkine–Zolotarev existence, and the counting lemmas.

Selected references

• R. Kannan, Minkowski's Convex Body Theorem and Integer Programming, Mathematics of Operations Research 12(3):415–440, 1987. https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.12.3.415
• H. W. Lenstra Jr., Integer programming with a fixed number of variables, Mathematics of Operations Research 8(4):538–548, 1983. https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.8.4.538
• R. Kannan, L. Lovász, Covering minima and lattice-point-free convex bodies, Annals of Mathematics 128(3):577–602, 1988. https://doi.org/10.2307/1971436
• A. K. Lenstra, H. W. Lenstra Jr., L. Lovász, Factoring polynomials with rational coefficients, Mathematische Annalen 261:515–534, 1982. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01457454
• F. John, Extremum problems with inequalities as subsidiary conditions, Studies and Essays presented to R. Courant, 1948, 187–204.