Convex Optimization

Motivation

This mission continues chapter 10's algorithmic account across its remaining two sections: finishing the Iwata-Fleischer-Fujishige fixing algorithm for submodular minimization (§10.2.3's tail), the steepest descent algorithm for L-convex function minimization (§10.3), and — the capstone of chapter 10's account of the M-convex submodular flow problem (§10.4) — conjugate scaling, the operation that finally makes the primal-dual algorithm run in polynomial time. As in mission 34-ch10b-algorithms, most of this block's numbered results are asymptotic complexity bounds; this mission places the results that are ordinary mathematical propositions.

Setting

The IFF fixing algorithm (mission 34-ch10b-algorithms) builds an acyclic graph D=(U,F) and partition Z,H,Γ certifying the maximal minimizer of a submodular ρ once η≤0 (Eq. (10.26)); this mission places the case-independent inequality its own legitimacy rests on, and restates its correctness conclusion. The steepest descent algorithm for an L-convex function g repeatedly minimizes the submodular set function ρ_p(X)=g(p+χ_X)-g(p) and moves to p+χ_X for its minimal minimizer X (the tie-breaking rule (10.33)); this mission places the resulting monotonicity fact and a domain-size bound for the L$^\natural$-convex adaptation. Conjugate scaling replaces a dual-integral M-convex function's conjugate g with g_α(p)=g(αp)/α, defining f⟨α⟩ via the resulting sup-formula (Eq. (10.77)) — a scaling operation compatible with M-convexity where the naive ⌈f(·)/α⌉ is not.

Formalization targets

Goal: Conjugate scaling preserves M-convexity (Proposition 10.41)

For a dual-integral polyhedral M-convex function f (represented as the mixed real-primal/ integer-dual conjugate of an L$^\natural$-convex g), the conjugate scaling f⟨α⟩ is again dual-integral M-convex, witnessed by g_α itself being L$^\natural$-convex, provided f⟨α⟩>-∞. Chosen as goal: this is the fact the whole conjugate scaling algorithm — chapter 10's final and most refined algorithm for the M-convex submodular flow problem — depends on, and the book's own text singles it out as the "compatible scaling operation" that makes M-convex cost scaling work where a naive approach provably does not.

Supporting structural targets

Proposition 10.26 (the case-independent inequality underlying the IFF fixing algorithm's own legitimacy) and Proposition 10.28 (that algorithm's correctness conclusion) close out mission 34-ch10b-algorithms's coverage of §10.2.3. Proposition 10.30 gives the steepest descent algorithm's monotonicity property under its tie-breaking rule; Proposition 10.32 (found by direct reading) bounds the L$^\natural$-convex adaptation's domain-size parameter in terms of the original function's.

Significance

Conjugate scaling is chapter 10's demonstration that M-convexity, while a combinatorial rather than a numeric-magnitude notion, still admits a genuine scaling technique compatible with its own structure — completing the book's account of the M-convex submodular flow problem with an algorithm whose polynomial running time depends on exactly this compatibility. Propositions 10.26/10.28 complete the correctness/legitimacy argument for the strongly polynomial submodular- minimization algorithm mission 34-ch10b-algorithms began placing, and Propositions 10.30/10.32 are the analogous structural facts for L-convex function minimization, chapter 10's third major algorithmic thread.

None of these results are open — they are Murota's own account of submodular-function- minimization (§10.2 continued), L-convex minimization (§10.3), and conjugate scaling (§10.4.5). What this mission contributes is a faithful, machine-checked formal statement of each, including one result (Proposition 10.32) the platform's own automated extractor missed; no comparable formalization exists on the platform (see Formalization scope).

Difficulty

As in mission 34-ch10b-algorithms, several numbered results in this block are excluded as hard for being pure algorithmic-complexity bounds (Propositions 10.25, 10.27, 10.31); see HARD.md. A further three (Propositions 10.37-10.39, on the primal-dual algorithm's maximum submodular flow subproblem) are excluded for a distinct reason: the source text's own OCR extraction demonstrably cannot distinguish the two visually different capacity-bound symbols (c* overlined vs. underlined) central to their shared defining formula, confirmed directly against the raw extracted bytes, making faithful reconstruction of that formula impossible from the available text; see HARD.md.

Formalization scope

Ground-set elements are a Fintype V with DecidableEq. All apparatus needed for Propositions 10.26/10.28 (Submodular, GammaSet, RhoTilde, ReachSet, Eta, IsMaximalMinimizer) is redeclared fresh from mission 34-ch10b-algorithms, genericized over an arbitrary ground type where the original was V-specific, since this draft cannot import that sibling. Proposition 10.26 is placed as the case-independent core inequality its own proof establishes, rather than by replicating the three-case verification against Proposition 10.24's own internal proof objects (Cases (i)-(iii)); see HARD.md. Proposition 10.30 omits its own trailing iteration-count corollary (a pure complexity bound); see HARD.md. Six numbered results (Propositions 10.25, 10.27, 10.31, 10.37, 10.38, 10.39) are hard. Contributions completing any of the five sorrys are welcome; the goal carries the most independent proof content (via the conjugacy theorem and Theorem 7.10(2), both established elsewhere in this series).

Selected references

• K. Murota, Discrete Convex Analysis, SIAM, 2003. DOI: 10.1137/1.9780898718508.
• S. Iwata, "A faster scaling algorithm for minimizing submodular functions," SIAM Journal on Computing, 32 (2003), pp. 833-840 [99] (conjugate scaling's origin).
• A. Frank, "A weighted matroid intersection algorithm," Journal of Algorithms, 2 (1981), pp. 328-336 [55] (the primal-dual framework this mission's Proposition 10.28 continues, via mission 34-ch10b-algorithms's own Proposition 10.24).

Motivation

In the capacitated vehicle routing problem (CVRP) a fleet of $m$ vehicles of capacity $Q$ leaves a depot and serves $n$ customers; every customer is visited once, and the load of each route must not exceed $Q$. In practice customer demands are uncertain at planning time. The chance-constrained CVRP asks that each route respect the capacity with probability at least $1-\epsilon$, but this presupposes a known demand distribution, which is rarely available. Ghosal and Wiesemann (Oper. Res. 68(3), 2020) require the chance constraints to hold for every distribution in an ambiguity set $\mathcal P$ built from the information that can actually be estimated: support, means and dispersion bounds.

Their branch-and-cut method separates rounded capacity inequalities whose right-hand side is the worst-case value-at-risk of the total demand of a customer set $S$. This quantity is evaluated thousands of times during the search, so it matters whether it has a closed form or a small convex reformulation. This mission concerns the paper's covariance ambiguity sets (§5.2), which bound the whole covariance matrix of the demands and can therefore express that demands of nearby customers are correlated, as happens with geographically clustered demand. The covariance bound can be derived from data, for example analytically through McDiarmid's inequality (Delage and Ye, 2010) or by bootstrapping.

Setting

Customers are indexed by $i\in\{1,\dots,n\}$ and their random demand vector is $\tilde{\boldsymbol q}\in\mathbb R^n$. Fix a box $\mathcal Q=[\underline{\boldsymbol q},\overline{\boldsymbol q}]$ with $\underline{\boldsymbol q}\ge\mathbf 0$, a mean vector $\boldsymbol\mu$ in the interior of $\mathcal Q$, and a symmetric positive definite matrix $\Sigma\succ0$. The covariance ambiguity set is

$$\mathcal P=\Big\{\mathbb P\in\mathcal P_0(\mathbb R^n):\ \mathbb P[\tilde{\boldsymbol q}\in\mathcal Q]=1,\ \mathbb E_{\mathbb P}[\tilde{\boldsymbol q}]=\boldsymbol\mu,\ \mathbb E_{\mathbb P}\big[(\tilde{\boldsymbol q}-\boldsymbol\mu)(\tilde{\boldsymbol q}-\boldsymbol\mu)^\top\big]\preceq\Sigma\Big\},\tag{16}$$

where $\mathcal P_0(\mathbb R^n)$ is the set of all probability distributions on $\mathbb R^n$ and $A\preceq\Sigma$ means that $\Sigma-A$ is positive semidefinite.

For a distribution $\mathbb P$ and a real random variable $\tilde X$, the value-at-risk at level $1-\epsilon$, $\epsilon\in(0,1)$, is $\mathbb P\text{-VaR}_{1-\epsilon}[\tilde X]=\inf\{x\in\mathbb R:\mathbb P[\tilde X\le x]\ge1-\epsilon\}$. For a customer set $S$, the worst-case value-at-risk is $\sup_{\mathbb P\in\mathcal P}\mathbb P\text{-VaR}_{1-\epsilon}[\sum_{i\in S}\tilde q_i]$. A route serving $S$ satisfies the chance constraint for every $\mathbb P\in\mathcal P$ exactly when this number is at most $Q$.

Two componentwise bounds appear in the answer:

$$\boldsymbol q^\ell=\max\Big\{-\tfrac{1-\epsilon}{\epsilon}(\overline{\boldsymbol q}-\boldsymbol\mu),\ \underline{\boldsymbol q}-\boldsymbol\mu\Big\},\qquad\boldsymbol q^u=\min\Big\{\tfrac{1-\epsilon}{\epsilon}(\boldsymbol\mu-\underline{\boldsymbol q}),\ \overline{\boldsymbol q}-\boldsymbol\mu\Big\}.$$

A route set is an ordered partition of the customers into $m$ nonempty ordered routes. It is feasible in the distributionally robust problem RVRP($\mathcal P$) if every route satisfies the chance constraint for every $\mathbb P\in\mathcal P$, and feasible in a deterministic instance with capacity $Q'$ and demands $\boldsymbol q$ if every route's total demand is at most $Q'$.

Formalization targets

Goal: Theorem 7

For every customer set $S$,

$$\sup_{\mathbb P\in\mathcal P}\mathbb P\text{-VaR}_{1-\epsilon}\Big[\sum_{i\in S}\tilde q_i\Big]=\max\Big\{\mathbf 1_S^\top\boldsymbol\mu+\mathbf 1_S^\top\boldsymbol q:\ \boldsymbol q^\top\Sigma^{-1}\boldsymbol q\le\tfrac{1-\epsilon}{\epsilon},\ \boldsymbol q\in[\boldsymbol q^\ell,\boldsymbol q^u]\Big\}.\tag{17}$$

The right-hand side maximizes an affine function over the intersection of an ellipsoid and a box.

Milestone: Corollary 4 (corrected)

For a diagonal bound $\Sigma=\operatorname{diag}(\sigma_1^2,\dots,\sigma_n^2)$, program (17) collapses to a search over one parameter $\theta\ge0$ with $S(\theta)=\{i\in S:\sigma_i^2>\theta q^u_i\}$:

$$\sup_{\theta}\ \mathbf 1_S^\top\boldsymbol\mu+\sum_{i\in S(\theta)}q^u_i+\sqrt{\Big[\tfrac{1-\epsilon}{\epsilon}-\sum_{i\in S(\theta)}\big(\tfrac{q^u_i}{\sigma_i}\big)^2\Big]\Big[\sum_{i\in S\setminus S(\theta)}\sigma_i^2\Big]},\tag{18}$$

over the $\theta$ for which the first bracket is nonnegative and the point of (17) that $\theta$ induces respects $\boldsymbol q^u$ (see Formalization scope).

Milestone: Theorem 6

For some instance with the ambiguity set (16), no deterministic CVRP instance on the same customers and fleet has the same set of feasible route sets.

Significance

Theorem 7 makes the worst-case value-at-risk over (16) computable in polynomial time as a convex quadratically constrained program. With it, the rounded capacity inequalities of the two-index vehicle flow formulation can be separated for covariance information. Theorem 2 of the same paper shows that the resulting demand estimator is subadditive, so this formulation is exact. Corollary 4 gives a closed form for the diagonal case, which the paper uses to evaluate the estimator in time linear in $|S|$ after sorting. Theorem 6 explains why the paper needs this machinery: the robust feasible region cannot be reproduced by any deterministic demand vector and capacity.

The results are proved in the paper's online supplement. No part of them is formalized anywhere to our knowledge; the platform has no worst-case value-at-risk and no moment-based ambiguity set. A complete development would give machine-checked worst-case VaR bounds over moment sets with second-order information. These are used well beyond routing, in distributionally robust portfolio and inventory models.

Difficulty

The supremum ranges over an infinite-dimensional set of distributions, while (17) ranges over vectors. The inequality "$\ge$" requires, for every feasible $\boldsymbol q$ of (17), a sequence of distributions in (16) whose value-at-risk approaches $\mathbf 1_S^\top(\boldsymbol\mu+\boldsymbol q)$. The value-at-risk is a lower quantile, so a distribution placing mass exactly $\epsilon$ on a high point does not attain the value: the construction has to be a limit. The inequality "$\le$" is harder. It must rule out every distribution, not only two-point ones, and a bound through the one-dimensional Chebyshev–Cantelli inequality for $\sum_{i\in S}\tilde q_i$ alone ignores the box: it yields $\sqrt{\frac{1-\epsilon}{\epsilon}\mathbf 1_S^\top\Sigma\mathbf 1_S}$, which is too large whenever the support bounds bind. The interaction between the Loewner constraint and the componentwise support bounds, which produces the unusual bound $\boldsymbol q^\ell$, is where the work lies. For Theorem 6 the difficulty is to exhibit the instance and to evaluate enough chance constraints exactly.

Formalization scope

Customers are Fin n (0-based) and demand vectors are Fin n → ℝ. Distributions are measures on Fin n → ℝ. The set (16) is covarianceSet qlo qhi μ Sig: a probability measure with P (Set.Icc qlo qhi) = 1, coordinate means μ, and Sig - M positive semidefinite, where M is the matrix of integrals $\int(q_i-\mu_i)(q_j-\mu_j)\,d\mathbb P$. The covariance bound is called Sig because Σ is Lean syntax. The side conditions $\underline{\boldsymbol q}\ge\mathbf 0$, $\boldsymbol\mu\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal Q$, $\Sigma\succ0$ (Sig.PosDef) and $0<\epsilon<1$ are hypotheses of every theorem. The value-at-risk is the published MultistageStochastic.valueAtRisk P Y (1 - ε). The worst-case value-at-risk is a real sSup over the image of the set. That image is nonempty (the Dirac measure at $\boldsymbol\mu$ lies in (16)) and bounded (the box), so the supremum is genuine. "The optimal objective value" of a maximization is stated as a supremum; attainment is not part of any claim. $\Sigma^{-1}$ is Mathlib's matrix inverse.

The paper states Theorem 7 and Corollary 4 with "$\mathbb P$-VaR" without a level; the level $1-\epsilon$, used in the sentence introducing Theorem 7 and everywhere else, is read in. Corollary 4 as printed is false. It maximizes over every $\theta\ge0$ with a nonnegative bracket. For $n=1$, every large $\theta$ then gives the value $\mu_1+\sigma_1\sqrt{(1-\epsilon)/\epsilon}$, which can exceed $\overline q_1$ and hence every value-at-risk. The formal statement adds the condition that makes each $\theta$ a feasible point of (17): $\sigma_i^2\sqrt{s(\theta)}\le q^u_i\sqrt{\sum_{k\in S\setminus S(\theta)}\sigma_k^2}$ for $i\in S\setminus S(\theta)$, where $s(\theta)$ is the first bracket. With this condition the statement is the diagonal case of Theorem 7.

A theorem about the Lean set is trivial if the set is empty or the supremum is a junk value. Neither happens here, and replacing the Loewner constraint by a scalar variance bound on $\sum_{i\in S}\tilde q_i$ would state a different theorem. The dual second-order cone program printed after Theorem 7 is not a target: as printed it has the all-ones vector where Lagrangian duality gives $\mathbf 1_S$, and it has no multiplier for $\boldsymbol q\ge\boldsymbol q^\ell$.

Needed infrastructure: quantiles of pushforward measures, the Loewner order on moment matrices, and finite-support (two-point) distributions. The value-at-risk lemmas and the moment-matrix lemmas are reusable beyond this mission, and contributions of either kind are welcome. Theorem 6 needs only the route-set layer defined here and one explicit instance.

Selected references

• S. Ghosal and W. Wiesemann, The Distributionally Robust Chance-Constrained Vehicle Routing Problem, Operations Research 68(3):716–732, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2019.1924
• E. Delage and Y. Ye, Distributionally Robust Optimization Under Moment Uncertainty with Application to Data-Driven Problems, Operations Research 58(3):595–612, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1090.0741
• S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization, Cambridge University Press, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804441
• G. Laporte, Y. Nobert and M. Desrochers, Optimal Routing under Capacity and Distance Restrictions, Operations Research 33(5):1050–1073, 1985. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.33.5.1050

Motivation

In the capacitated vehicle routing problem (CVRP) a depot serves customers $V_C=\{1,\dots,n\}$ with $m$ vehicles of capacity $Q$, and every route must respect the capacity. When customer demands are uncertain, the distributionally robust chance-constrained CVRP of Ghosal and Wiesemann (Oper. Res. 68(3), 2020) requires every route to meet its capacity with probability at least $1-\epsilon$ under every distribution in an ambiguity set $\mathcal P$, a family of distributions consistent with what is known about the demands. Such constraints are handled in a branch-and-cut scheme through rounded capacity inequalities, whose right-hand sides require one quantity for each customer subset $S$: the worst-case value-at-risk of the cumulative demand of $S$.

For ambiguity sets that describe each customer separately (marginal moment sets), this quantity is additive over customers and the problem reduces to a deterministic CVRP. Such sets cannot express that the demands of customers in the same municipality, county or state vary jointly within limits. The first-order generic moment ambiguity set does express this: it bounds the mean absolute deviation of the cumulative demand of prescribed customer groups. The mean absolute deviation is a standard robust dispersion measure, less sensitive to outliers than the standard deviation (see Casella and Berger, Statistical Inference, 2002). This mission formalizes the paper's description of the worst-case value-at-risk over such sets.

Setting

Demands form a random vector $\tilde{\boldsymbol q}$ on $\mathbb R^n$. The data are a support box $\mathcal Q=[\underline{\boldsymbol q},\overline{\boldsymbol q}]$ with $\underline{\boldsymbol q}\ge\mathbf 0$, a mean vector $\boldsymbol\mu$ in the interior of $\mathcal Q$, customer subsets $S_1,\dots,S_p\subseteq V_C$ and bounds $\boldsymbol\nu>\mathbf 0$. For $A\subseteq V_C$, $\mathbf 1_A\in\{0,1\}^n$ is its indicator vector. The first-order generic moment ambiguity set, Eq. (12) of the paper, is

$$\mathcal P=\Bigl\{\mathbb P\in\mathcal P_0(\mathbb R^n):\ \mathbb P[\tilde{\boldsymbol q}\in\mathcal Q]=1,\ \mathbb E_{\mathbb P}[\tilde{\boldsymbol q}]=\boldsymbol\mu,\ \mathbb E_{\mathbb P}\bigl[\mathbf 1_{S_i}^\top|\tilde{\boldsymbol q}-\boldsymbol\mu|\bigr]\le\nu_i\ \ \forall i=1,\dots,p\Bigr\},$$

where $\mathcal P_0(\mathbb R^n)$ is the set of probability distributions on $\mathbb R^n$ and $|\cdot|$ acts componentwise. The subsets are arbitrary: they may overlap and need not cover $V_C$.

For a risk level $\epsilon\in(0,1)$ and a random variable $\tilde X$, the value-at-risk is $\mathbb P\text{-VaR}_{1-\epsilon}[\tilde X]=\inf\{x\in\mathbb R:\mathbb P[\tilde X\le x]\ge1-\epsilon\}$. For a customer subset $S$ the quantity of interest is

$$\sup_{\mathbb P\in\mathcal P}\ \mathbb P\text{-VaR}_{1-\epsilon}\Bigl[\sum_{i\in S}\tilde q_i\Bigr].$$

Write $\hat{\boldsymbol q}=\min\{\overline{\boldsymbol q}-\boldsymbol\mu,\ \frac{1-\epsilon}{\epsilon}(\boldsymbol\mu-\underline{\boldsymbol q})\}$ (componentwise) and $[\cdot]_+$ for the componentwise positive part. A route set $\mathbf R=(\mathbf R_1,\dots,\mathbf R_m)$ partitions $V_C$ into $m$ nonempty ordered routes. It is feasible in the deterministic CVRP with demands $\boldsymbol q$ if $\sum_{i\in\mathbf R_k}q_i\le Q$ for all $k$, and feasible in the distributionally robust CVRP if $\mathbb P[\sum_{i\in\mathbf R_k}\tilde q_i\le Q]\ge1-\epsilon$ for all $\mathbb P\in\mathcal P$ and all $k$.

Formalization targets

Goal: Theorem 5 (p. 726)

For every customer subset $S$,

$$\sup_{\mathbb P\in\mathcal P}\mathbb P\text{-VaR}_{1-\epsilon}\Bigl[\sum_{i\in S}\tilde q_i\Bigr]=\inf_{\boldsymbol\gamma\in\mathbb R^p_+}\ \mathbf 1_S^\top\boldsymbol\mu+\hat{\boldsymbol q}^\top\Bigl[\mathbf 1_S-2\sum_{i=1}^p\gamma_i\mathbf 1_{S_i}\Bigr]_+ +\frac1\epsilon\boldsymbol\nu^\top\boldsymbol\gamma .$$

The right-hand side is the optimal value of the paper's problem (13). The statement holds for every family of subsets and all data satisfying the standing assumptions, so it is the general form of which the milestones are special cases.

Corollary 2 (p. 726, Eq. (14))

If $S_1,\dots,S_{p-1}$ are pairwise disjoint and cover $V_C$ and $S_p=V_C$, then

$$\sup_{\mathbb P\in\mathcal P}\mathbb P\text{-VaR}_{1-\epsilon}\Bigl[\sum_{i\in S}\tilde q_i\Bigr]=\mathbf 1_S^\top\boldsymbol\mu+\min\Bigl\{\frac{\nu_p}{2\epsilon},\ \sum_{i=1}^{p-1}\min\Bigl\{\mathbf 1_{S\cap S_i}^\top\hat{\boldsymbol q},\ \frac{\nu_i}{2\epsilon}\Bigr\}\Bigr\}.$$

Corollary 3 (pp. 726–727, Eq. (15))

If $p=n+1$, $S_i=\{i\}$ for $i\le n$ and $S_{n+1}=V_C$, then

$$\sup_{\mathbb P\in\mathcal P}\mathbb P\text{-VaR}_{1-\epsilon}\Bigl[\sum_{i\in S}\tilde q_i\Bigr]=\mathbf 1_S^\top\boldsymbol\mu+\min\Bigl\{\frac{\nu_{n+1}}{2\epsilon},\ \sum_{i\in S}\min\Bigl\{\hat q_i,\ \frac{\nu_i}{2\epsilon}\Bigr\}\Bigr\}.$$

Theorem 4 (p. 726)

For some instance with an ambiguity set of the form (12), no deterministic CVRP instance on the same customers and vehicles (capacity $Q'\ge0$, demands $\boldsymbol q'\ge\mathbf 0$) has the same set of feasible route sets.

Significance

Theorem 5 makes the worst-case value-at-risk over (12) computable in polynomial time as the value of a nonsmooth convex problem over the nonnegative orthant, which the paper notes can be written as a linear program. This gives the right-hand sides of the rounded capacity inequalities in a branch-and-cut scheme for the distributionally robust CVRP. Corollaries 2 and 3 give closed forms for two structured families of groups, evaluable in time linear in $|S|$. Theorem 4 shows the gain in modelling power has a cost: unlike the marginal case, the problem cannot in general be replaced by a deterministic CVRP with altered demands. With a single customer and $S_1=\{1\}$, Theorem 5 reduces to the closed form $\mu+\min\{\hat q,\nu/(2\epsilon)\}$ for marginalized first-order sets, so it extends that single-customer formula to joint dispersion constraints.

All four results are proved in the paper's online supplement. As far as a platform search shows, none has been machine-checked. The mission produces checked proofs of the equality in Theorem 5, the two closed forms, and an explicit instance for Theorem 4.

Difficulty

The supremum ranges over an infinite-dimensional set of joint distributions, and the value-at-risk is neither convex nor concave in the distribution. Bounding the value-at-risk of each group separately and adding the bounds does not work when groups overlap, and it ignores the total-dispersion constraint. It gives only an upper bound, and in the setting of Corollary 2 that bound is strict whenever the total bound $\nu_p/(2\epsilon)$ is the binding term. Showing that the infimum in (13) is attained in the limit needs distributions that saturate several overlapping dispersion constraints at once while keeping the mean fixed and the support inside the box. For Theorem 4, the witness must separate the feasible-route-set family of the robust instance from every family defined by a single linear capacity inequality with nonnegative weights.

Formalization scope

Customers are Fin n (0-based), subsets are Sfam : Fin p → Finset (Fin n), and a distribution is a Measure (Fin n → ℝ) that is required to be a probability measure. Support is P (Set.Icc qlo qhi) = 1, the mean condition is ∫ q, q j ∂P = μ j, and the dispersion condition is ∫ q, ∑ j ∈ Sfam l, |q j - μ j| ∂P ≤ ν l. The integrability clauses stated alongside are automatic for measures carried by the box. The value-at-risk is the published MultistageStochastic.valueAtRisk P Y (1 - ε). The worst-case value-at-risk is the real sSup of its image over the set; under the standing assumptions this image is nonempty (the Dirac at $\boldsymbol\mu$ lies in the set) and bounded (bounded support), so the real supremum is the paper's. The optimal value of (13) is the real sInf of the objective over $\{\boldsymbol\gamma\ge\mathbf 0\}$, a nonempty set on which the objective is bounded below by $\mathbf 1_S^\top\boldsymbol\mu$. Attainment is not claimed. All statements carry the standing assumptions $\underline{\boldsymbol q}\ge\mathbf 0$, $\underline{\boldsymbol q}<\boldsymbol\mu<\overline{\boldsymbol q}$, $\boldsymbol\nu>\mathbf 0$ and $0<\epsilon<1$. Corollary 2 writes $p=r+1$ with the last subset Sfam (Fin.last r). Corollary 3 indexes the singleton of customer $i$ by Fin.castSucc i. In Theorem 4 route sets are Fin m → List (Fin n) and only feasibility is modelled; costs play no role.

The theorems are not trivialized by an empty ambiguity set or a junk supremum: membership of the Dirac distribution at $\boldsymbol\mu$ is checked locally with a sorry-free proof. Theorem 4 needs a genuinely separating instance: an instance in which no route set is robustly feasible, for example, is matched by a deterministic instance in which none is feasible either.

Needed infrastructure: two-point and finitely supported distributions on $\mathbb R^n$ and their value-at-risk; weak duality for moment problems over the box; the positive-part calculus of (13). The value-at-risk lemmas for finitely supported measures are reusable in the sibling missions on this paper. Contributions of any of the milestones, of lemmas for these building blocks, or of either inequality of Theorem 5 on its own are welcome.

Selected references

• S. Ghosal and W. Wiesemann, The Distributionally Robust Chance-Constrained Vehicle Routing Problem, Operations Research 68(3):716–732, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2019.1924
• G. Casella and R. L. Berger, Statistical Inference, 2nd ed., Duxbury, 2002.
• S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization, Cambridge University Press, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804441
• G. Laporte, Y. Nobert and M. Desrochers, Optimal routing under capacity and distance restrictions, Operations Research 33(5):1050–1073, 1985. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.33.5.1050

Motivation

The capacitated vehicle routing problem (CVRP) assigns customers to a fleet of $m$ identical vehicles of capacity $Q$ and orders each vehicle's visits so as to minimize transportation cost, subject to each vehicle's total load not exceeding $Q$. In practice the customers' demands are not known when the routes are planned. Two classical responses are the robust CVRP, which requires feasibility for every demand vector in an uncertainty set, and the chance-constrained CVRP, which requires each capacity constraint to hold with probability at least $1-\epsilon$ under a known demand distribution. The first ignores all distributional information; the second assumes a distribution that is rarely known and usually requires independent demands.

Ghosal and Wiesemann (Oper. Res. 68(3), 2020) study the distributionally robust chance-constrained CVRP, RVRP($\mathcal P$), in which each capacity constraint must hold with probability at least $1-\epsilon$ under every distribution of an ambiguity set $\mathcal P$. Whether this problem can be solved with existing CVRP technology depends on how the worst-case value-at-risk of a customer set's total demand behaves as a set function. This mission formalizes §4 of the paper, which treats ambiguity sets that only constrain each customer's demand separately.

Setting

There are $n$ customers $V_C=\{1,\dots,n\}$ with random demand vector $\tilde{\boldsymbol q}\in\mathbb R^n$ and a risk level $\epsilon\in(0,1)$. For a probability distribution $\mathbb P$ and a real random variable $\tilde X$, the value-at-risk is

$$\mathbb P\text{-VaR}_{1-\epsilon}[\tilde X]=\inf\{x\in\mathbb R:\ \mathbb P[\tilde X\le x]\ge1-\epsilon\}.$$

For an ambiguity set $\mathcal P$ and a customer subset $S$, the worst-case value-at-risk of $S$ is $\sup_{\mathbb P\in\mathcal P}\mathbb P\text{-VaR}_{1-\epsilon}[\sum_{i\in S}\tilde q_i]$.

Fix a support box $\mathcal Q=[\underline{\boldsymbol q},\overline{\boldsymbol q}]$ with $\underline{\boldsymbol q}\ge\mathbf 0$, a mean vector $\boldsymbol\mu$ in the interior of $\mathcal Q$, and for each customer $i$ a componentwise convex dispersion measure $\boldsymbol\varphi_i:\mathbb R\to\mathbb R^{p_i}$ with bound $\boldsymbol\sigma_i>\boldsymbol\varphi_i(\mu_i)$. The marginalized moment ambiguity set (5) is

$$\mathcal P=\Big\{\mathbb P\in\mathcal P_0(\mathbb R^n):\ \mathbb P(\tilde{\boldsymbol q}\in\mathcal Q)=1,\ \mathbb E_{\mathbb P}[\tilde{\boldsymbol q}]=\boldsymbol\mu,\ \mathbb E_{\mathbb P}[\boldsymbol\varphi_i(\tilde q_i)]\le\boldsymbol\sigma_i\ \forall i\in V_C\Big\}.$$

It constrains marginal moments only, and so contains joint distributions of every dependence structure, from independent to perfectly correlated demands. Three special cases have their own closed forms: the first-order set (6), where $\sigma_i>0$ bounds the mean absolute deviation $\mathbb E|\tilde q_i-\mu_i|$; the variance set (8), where $\sigma_i>0$ bounds $\mathbb E(\tilde q_i-\mu_i)^2$; and the semivariance set (10), where $\sigma_i^+,\sigma_i^->0$ bound $\mathbb E[\tilde q_i-\mu_i]_+^2$ and $\mathbb E[\mu_i-\tilde q_i]_+^2$.

A route set $\mathbf R=(R_1,\dots,R_m)\in\mathfrak P(V_C,m)$ partitions the customers into $m$ nonempty ordered routes. It is feasible in RVRP($\mathcal P$) if $\mathbb P[\sum_{i\in R_k}\tilde q_i\le Q]\ge1-\epsilon$ for all $\mathbb P\in\mathcal P$ and all $k$, and feasible in the deterministic CVRP with demands $\boldsymbol q$ if $\sum_{i\in R_k}q_i\le Q$ for all $k$.

Formalization targets

Goal: Theorem 3 (p. 723)

For every marginalized moment ambiguity set (5) and every nonempty $S\subseteq V_C$,

$$\sup_{\mathbb P\in\mathcal P}\mathbb P\text{-VaR}_{1-\epsilon}\Big[\sum_{i\in S}\tilde q_i\Big]=\sum_{i\in S}\sup_{\mathbb P\in\mathcal P}\mathbb P\text{-VaR}_{1-\epsilon}[\tilde q_i].$$

The dispersion measures are left arbitrary (convex, componentwise, any number of components), so the goal covers every set of the form (5).

Milestones

• Proposition 2 (p. 724, Eq. (7)), first-order sets: $\sup_{\mathbb P}\mathbb P\text{-VaR}_{1-\epsilon}[\tilde q_i]=\mu_i+\min\{\overline q_i-\mu_i,\frac{1-\epsilon}{\epsilon}(\mu_i-\underline q_i),\frac1{2\epsilon}\sigma_i\}$.
• Proposition 3 (p. 725, Eq. (9)), variance sets: the same with last term $\sqrt{\frac{1-\epsilon}{\epsilon}\sigma_i}$.
• Proposition 4 (p. 725, Eq. (11)), semivariance sets: the four-term minimum with $\sqrt{\sigma_i^+/\epsilon}$ and $\sqrt{(1-\epsilon)\sigma_i^-}/\epsilon$.
• Corollary 1 (p. 723): a route set is feasible in RVRP($\mathcal P$) over (5) if and only if it is feasible in the deterministic CVRP with demands $q_i=\sup_{\mathbb P\in\mathcal P}\mathbb P\text{-VaR}_{1-\epsilon}[\tilde q_i]$.

Significance

Theorem 3 says that over (5) the worst case of a sum is the sum of the worst cases. Because the value-at-risk is not additive for a fixed distribution, and the online supplement exhibits distributions in such a set for which the individual values-at-risk are not additive, the statement is about the ambiguity set, not about any of its members. Its consequence, Corollary 1, is that RVRP($\mathcal P$) over (5) is a deterministic CVRP with inflated demands, so existing branch-and-cut and branch-and-cut-and-price codes solve it unchanged. Propositions 2–4 make those inflated demands explicit for three standard dispersion measures, so that the whole reduction is in closed form. The corollary also exposes a limitation: under (5) the worst-case distribution does not depend on the route set, and the model cannot represent known dependencies between customers.

The results are proved in the paper's online supplement; none has a machine-checked proof. A formalization produces a checked worst-case value-at-risk calculus over moment sets with support constraints, including sharp one-sided Chebyshev-type bounds under mean-absolute-deviation, variance and semivariance constraints, which are reusable in distributionally robust optimization beyond vehicle routing.

Difficulty

The value-at-risk is neither subadditive nor superadditive in general, so neither inequality of Theorem 3 follows from properties of a single distribution. The inequality "$\ge$" requires combining near-worst-case distributions of the individual customers into one joint distribution in $\mathcal P$ that is simultaneously near-worst for the sum; the inequality "$\le$" requires bounding the value-at-risk of the sum for an arbitrary joint law using only marginal information. In Propositions 2–4 the supremum is typically not attained: the distribution concentrating mass at the claimed worst-case value violates the mean constraint, and the value is reached only as a limit of distributions in $\mathcal P$. An argument that exhibits a single maximizer therefore fails, and the statements must be proved as equalities of suprema.

Formalization scope

Customers are Fin n (0-based) and demand vectors are Fin n → ℝ. An ambiguity set is a set of measures on Fin n → ℝ, each required to be a probability measure; the support condition is P (Set.Icc qlo qhi) = 1 and expectations are Bochner integrals. The sets are sets of joint laws on $\mathbb R^n$, never products of marginals. In (5) each expectation $\mathbb E_{\mathbb P}[\varphi_{i,l}(\tilde q_i)]$ is required to exist; this is automatic for convex $\varphi_{i,l}$ on the bounded support. The value-at-risk is the published definition MultistageStochastic.valueAtRisk P Y (1 - ε), and the worst-case value-at-risk is the real supremum of its values over the ambiguity set; under the standing assumptions that set of values is nonempty (the Dirac law at $\boldsymbol\mu$ belongs to $\mathcal P$) and bounded (by the support), so the supremum is not a default value. The single-customer quantity is the case $S=\{i\}$. The standing assumptions ($\underline{\boldsymbol q}\ge\mathbf 0$, $\underline{\boldsymbol q}<\boldsymbol\mu<\overline{\boldsymbol q}$, convexity of $\varphi_{i,l}$, $\varphi_{i,l}(\mu_i)<\sigma_{i,l}$, $\boldsymbol\sigma,\boldsymbol\sigma^\pm>\mathbf 0$, $0<\epsilon<1$) are explicit hypotheses. Routes are lists of customers; a route set has nonempty routes whose concatenation is a permutation of all customers. Costs are not formalized, since both routing problems minimize the same cost over their feasible route sets.

All targets are equalities or equivalences; a one-sided inequality, a statement asserting that some distribution attains the value, or a formulation over product measures is a different theorem and does not count.

Contributions welcome: the reduction of the chance constraint to a value-at-risk bound, the right-continuity lemmas for the value-at-risk of a measure on $\mathbb R^n$, two-point constructions in the ambiguity sets, and one-sided Chebyshev-type bounds with support constraints.

Selected references

• S. Ghosal and W. Wiesemann, The Distributionally Robust Chance-Constrained Vehicle Routing Problem, Operations Research 68(3):716–732, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2019.1924
• G. Laporte, Y. Nobert and M. Desrochers, Optimal routing under capacity and distance restrictions, Operations Research 33(5):1050–1073, 1985. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.33.5.1050
• G. Casella and R. L. Berger, Statistical Inference, 2nd ed., Duxbury, 2002.

Motivation

The capacitated vehicle routing problem (CVRP) asks for a set of minimum-cost routes by which a fleet of identical vehicles of capacity $Q$, based at a depot, serves every customer exactly once without any vehicle carrying more than its capacity. In practice customer demands are not known when routes are planned. Ghosal and Wiesemann (Oper. Res. 68(3), 2020) study the distributionally robust CVRP: the demand vector $\tilde{\boldsymbol q}$ is random, its distribution is known only to lie in an ambiguity set $\mathcal P$, and every route must respect its capacity with probability at least $1-\epsilon$ under every distribution in $\mathcal P$.

Exact CVRP solvers rely on compact two-index vehicle flow formulations strengthened by rounded capacity inequalities, which bound from below the number of vehicles entering any customer subset $S$ by a demand estimator $d(S)$. The paper shows (its Theorem 1) that the robust two-index formulation is exact whenever the demand estimator is subadditive and demands are nonnegative, and that this fails for some natural ambiguity sets: sets that fix the marginal distribution of each customer's demand violate it (Example 1). This mission formalizes the paper's positive result for the most widely used class of ambiguity sets, the moment ambiguity sets of distributionally robust optimization (see El Ghaoui et al. 2003, Delage and Ye 2010, Wiesemann et al. 2014).

Setting

There are $n$ customers, indexed $i=1,\dots,n$; the demand vector is $\tilde{\boldsymbol q}\in\mathbb R^n$. Fix

• a rectangular support $\mathcal Q=[\underline{\boldsymbol q},\overline{\boldsymbol q}]$ with $\underline{\boldsymbol q}\ge\mathbf 0$;
• a mean vector $\boldsymbol\mu\in\mathbb R^n$;
• a dispersion measure $\boldsymbol\varphi=(\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_p):\mathbb R^n\to\mathbb R^p$ (for example mean absolute deviations $|q_i-\mu_i|$, variances $(q_i-\mu_i)^2$ or Huber losses) and bounds $\boldsymbol\sigma\in\mathbb R^p$.

The moment ambiguity set is

$$\mathcal P=\Big\{\mathbb P\in\mathcal P_0(\mathbb R^n):\ \mathbb P(\tilde{\boldsymbol q}\in\mathcal Q)=1,\ \ \mathbb E_{\mathbb P}[\tilde{\boldsymbol q}]=\boldsymbol\mu,\ \ \mathbb E_{\mathbb P}[\boldsymbol\varphi(\tilde{\boldsymbol q})]\le\boldsymbol\sigma\Big\},$$

where $\mathcal P_0(\mathbb R^n)$ denotes all probability distributions on $\mathbb R^n$. The paper's standing assumptions are $\boldsymbol\mu\in\operatorname{int}\mathcal Q$, each $\varphi_l$ closed and convex, and $\boldsymbol\varphi(\boldsymbol\mu)<\boldsymbol\sigma$.

For a distribution $\mathbb P$ the value-at-risk of a random variable is $\mathbb P\text{-VaR}_{1-\epsilon}[\tilde X]=\inf\{x\in\mathbb R:\mathbb P[\tilde X\le x]\ge1-\epsilon\}$, with risk level $\epsilon\in(0,1)$. The worst-case value-at-risk of a customer subset $S$ is $\sup_{\mathbb P\in\mathcal P}\mathbb P\text{-VaR}_{1-\epsilon}[\sum_{i\in S}\tilde q_i]$, and the demand estimator (2) is

$$d_{\mathcal P}(S)=\max\left\{\left\lceil\frac1Q\sup_{\mathbb P\in\mathcal P}\mathbb P\text{-VaR}_{1-\epsilon}\Big[\sum_{i\in S}\tilde q_i\Big]\right\rceil,1\right\}\quad(S\neq\emptyset),\qquad d_{\mathcal P}(\emptyset)=0 .$$

The Lean development names these momentAmbiguitySet qlo qhi μ φ σ, worstCaseVaR, demandEstimator and twoPointMeasure in the namespace DRCVRP.Moment.

Formalization targets

Goal: Theorem 2 (p. 723)

For every moment ambiguity set satisfying the standing assumptions, every $\epsilon\in(0,1)$ and every $Q>0$,

$$d_{\mathcal P}(S\cup T)\le d_{\mathcal P}(S)+d_{\mathcal P}(T)\qquad\text{for all customer subsets } S,T .$$

This is condition (S) of the paper, stated for the rounded estimator (2) and for all pairs of subsets, overlapping or empty ones included.

Milestone: Proposition 1 (p. 723)

For every customer subset $S$ there are two-point distributions $\mathbb P^t=p_1^t\delta_{\boldsymbol q_1^t}+p_2^t\delta_{\boldsymbol q_2^t}\in\mathcal P$ with $p_1^t,p_2^t\ge0$ and $\boldsymbol q_1^t,\boldsymbol q_2^t\in\mathcal Q$ such that

$$\mathbb P^t\text{-VaR}_{1-\epsilon}\Big[\sum_{i\in S}\tilde q_i\Big]\longrightarrow\sup_{\mathbb P\in\mathcal P}\mathbb P\text{-VaR}_{1-\epsilon}\Big[\sum_{i\in S}\tilde q_i\Big]\qquad(t\to\infty).$$

Significance

Combined with the paper's Theorem 1, Theorem 2 says that for every moment ambiguity set with nonnegative demands the robust CVRP can be solved through the compact two-index formulation with robust rounded capacity inequalities, i.e. by the branch-and-cut machinery of the deterministic CVRP. It also separates moment ambiguity sets from ambiguity sets built from marginal histograms, hypothesis tests, $\phi$-divergences or Wasserstein balls, whose estimators can violate subadditivity. Proposition 1 describes the worst case: however many moment constraints the set contains, two demand scenarios suffice to approach the worst-case value-at-risk, strengthening the Richter–Rogosinski theorem for this functional.

Both results are proved in the paper's online supplement. They have not, to the best of current knowledge, been machine checked. This mission produces a checked statement and proof of both, together with a reusable encoding of moment ambiguity sets and of the worst-case value-at-risk over them. The companion missions of the series formalize the equivalence theorem (I) and the explicit worst-case VaR formulas for marginalized (III), first-order (IV) and covariance (V) ambiguity sets.

Difficulty

Value-at-risk is not subadditive for a single distribution, so the obvious route, subadditivity of the worst-case VaR followed by $\lceil a+b\rceil\le\lceil a\rceil+\lceil b\rceil$, needs an argument specific to the moment set; for the marginal-histogram set of Example 1 the worst-case VaR itself fails to be subadditive. The supremum over $\mathcal P$ ranges over an infinite-dimensional set of distributions and is in general not attained, so an argument that picks a maximizer does not apply, and the classical finite-support reduction (Richter–Rogosinski) yields a number of support points that grows with the number of moment constraints, not two. The integer rounding and the $\max\{\cdot,1\}$ must also be handled for all pairs of subsets, including overlapping ones.

Formalization scope

Customers are Fin n (0-based) and customer subsets are Finset (Fin n). Distributions are measures on Fin n → ℝ; membership in the moment set requires a probability measure giving mass one to the closed box Set.Icc qlo qhi, integrable coordinates with ∫ q, q i ∂P = μ i (an equality), and integrable φ l with ∫ q, φ l q ∂P ≤ σ l. The integrability clauses hold automatically under the standing assumptions and do not shrink the set. The dispersion measure is an arbitrary real-valued function whose components are convex (convex real functions on $\mathbb R^n$ are continuous, which covers "closed"); $p=0$ is allowed. The value-at-risk is the published platform definition MultistageStochastic.valueAtRisk at level $1-\epsilon$. The worst-case VaR is a real sSup; over a moment set satisfying the standing assumptions the set of VaRs is nonempty (the Dirac measure at $\boldsymbol\mu$ belongs to $\mathcal P$) and bounded by the box, so this is the true supremum. The estimator is integer valued. Every standing assumption is a hypothesis of both theorems.

Neither statement can be satisfied trivially: the goal is about the rounded estimator of the true supremum over a nonempty set, not about subadditivity of an arbitrary set function, and the milestone requires the two-point laws to lie in $\mathcal P$ and their VaRs to converge to the supremum, not to be attained. Extended-valued dispersion measures, such as the one expressing the covariance set of §5.2 as an instance of (4), are outside the scope of the real-valued encoding.

A complete development needs basic facts about quantiles of finitely supported measures, the structure of the moment set, and a duality or construction argument for the worst-case VaR. Lemmas about value-at-risk of two-point laws and about moment sets are reusable across the series. Proofs of the milestone, of the goal, and of intermediate lemmas are welcome.

Selected references

• S. Ghosal, W. Wiesemann, The Distributionally Robust Chance-Constrained Vehicle Routing Problem, Operations Research 68(3):716–732, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2019.1924
• 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
• E. Delage, Y. Ye, Distributionally robust optimization under moment uncertainty with application to data-driven problems, Operations Research 58(3):595–612, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1090.0741
• W. Wiesemann, D. Kuhn, M. Sim, Distributionally robust convex optimization, Operations Research 62(6):1358–1376, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2014.1314
• A. Shapiro, D. Dentcheva, A. Ruszczyński, Lectures on Stochastic Programming: Modeling and Theory, 2nd ed., SIAM, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611973433

Motivation

Missions 29-ch08b-conjugacyduality and 30-ch08c-conjugacyduality built the M2-/L2-convex function classes and proved their conjugacy correspondence is nearly complete. This mission finishes that correspondence (Theorems 8.48-8.49) and then turns to chapter 8's capstone application: a Lagrangian duality theory for integer programs, built entirely from the M-/L-convexity machinery developed across the whole book. It develops the general perturbation-based duality framework (mirroring Rockafellar's conjugate duality for nonlinear programming), specializes it to M-convex programs via the perturbation $F_r$, and proves the strong duality theorem this specialization exists to deliver — together with its mirror construction recovering the primal problem from the dual.

Setting

An M-convex program consists of a set $B\subseteq\mathbb Z^V$ satisfying (REG) — $B$ is an M-convex set — and an objective $c:\mathbb Z^V\to\mathbb Z\cup\{+\infty\}$ satisfying (OBJ) — $c$ is an M-convex function. The general duality framework embeds any $f(x)=c(x)+\delta_B(x)$ in a family of perturbed problems via $F:\mathbb Z^V\times\mathbb Z^V\to\mathbb Z\cup\{+\infty\}$ with $F(x,0)=f(x)$, yielding an optimal-value function $\varphi$, a Lagrangian $K$, and a dual objective $g$. For M-convex programs the perturbation $F_r(x,u)=c(x)+\delta_B(x+u)+r(u)$, for an M-convex regularizer $r$ with $r(0)=0$, makes this framework concrete; the case $r\equiv 0$ is written with subscript $0$.

Formalization targets

Goal: Strong duality for M-convex programs (Theorem 8.59)

For a feasible, bounded-below M-convex program, $\min(P)=\varphi_r(0)=\varphi_r^{\bullet\bullet}(0) =\max(D_r)$, and $\operatorname{opt}(D_r)=-\partial_{\mathbb Z}\varphi_r(0)$. This is the theorem mission 11-conjugacy-ii-lagrange's own STATUS.md explicitly deferred, noting it needs the specific M-convex perturbation $F_r$ (Eq. (8.61)) and Propositions 8.55-8.56/Theorems 8.57-8.58 as prerequisites — all built as milestones of this mission.

Supporting structural targets

Theorem 8.48 completes the M2-/L2-convex conjugacy correspondence; Theorem 8.49 characterizes separable convex functions as exactly the M$^\natural_2$-and-L$^\natural_2$-convex functions. Theorem 8.53 (reduced to parts (1),(2),(4)) gives the general perturbation-independent duality identities: the dual objective is $g=-\varphi^{\bullet}(-\cdot)$, weak duality's biconjugate form $\sup(D)=\varphi^{\bullet\bullet}(0)$, and the equivalence of strong duality with biconjugate exactness. Proposition 8.55 shows the M-convex perturbation $F_r$ legitimately instantiates the general framework; Proposition 8.56 (reduced to part (1)) gives the closed form for the unregularized Lagrangian kernel $K_0$ via the conjugate of $B$'s indicator function; Theorems 8.57 and 8.58 establish the resulting convexity/concavity of the kernel, the dual objective, and the optimal-value function in each of their arguments. Propositions 8.62-8.63 and Theorems 8.64-8.65 build and analyze the mirror construction — the dual perturbation $G_r$, its optimal-value function $\gamma_r$, and the dual-of-dual reconstruction — showing that for bounded $B$ the process exactly recovers the primal problem and its own strong duality theorem.

Significance

This is chapter 8's payoff: a full nonlinear-integer-programming duality theory, built without any convexity assumption beyond M-/L-convexity, mirroring Rockafellar's classical conjugate duality approach line for line while replacing every continuous convexity argument with a discrete M-/L-convexity one. Theorem 8.59's proof is a two-line consequence of the machinery this mission assembles (Theorems 8.35, 8.53, 8.58), which is itself the point: the discrete theory's hard combinatorial work (Theorems 8.35, 8.36, 8.42 from prior missions) is what makes the strong duality theorem here nearly free, exactly as convex analysis makes classical Lagrangian duality nearly free once Fenchel duality is established. The bidirectional construction of Theorems 8.62-8.65 is the discrete analogue of the classical fact that Lagrangian duality is symmetric between primal and dual convex programs.

None of these results are open — they are Murota's own account of M2-/L2-conjugacy and Lagrangian duality (section 8.3.3 and section 8.4), continuing chapter 8's duality program to its conclusion. What this mission contributes is a faithful, machine-checked formal statement of each, completing the platform's coverage of chapter 8's duality theorems begun in missions 10-conjugacy-i and 11-conjugacy-ii-lagrange; no comparable formalization exists on the platform (see Formalization scope).

Difficulty

The EReal-valued ($\mathbb Z\cup\{\pm\infty\}$) typing is essential and new to this mission: unlike every prior mission in this series, the general framework's derived quantities ($\varphi$, $K$, $g$, and their mirror-construction analogues $G_r$, $\gamma_r$, $\tilde K_r$, $\tilde f$) are defined as infima/suprema over families that are not a priori bounded, so they can genuinely equal $-\infty$ or $+\infty$ — a value WithTop ℝ cannot represent and whose sInf instance would silently substitute a junk value (0) rather than correctly returning $-\infty$. The book's own repeated "$X$ is convex (resp. concave), or $X\equiv+\infty$, or $X\equiv-\infty$" disjunctive escape clauses (Theorems 8.57, 8.58, Propositions 8.63) are captured with two small generic combinators, IsEmbedOf/IsNegOf, rather than restating the embedding by hand at each of the roughly dozen occurrences.

Formalization scope

Ground-set elements are a Fintype V with DecidableEq; the base M-/L-/M2-/L2-convexity vocabulary is redeclared verbatim from missions 29-ch08b-conjugacyduality and 30-ch08c-conjugacyduality, since sibling drafts in this series cannot yet reference one another. Two results carry a documented partial-coverage scope reduction (see HARD.md): Theorem 8.53 is placed with only parts (1),(2),(4), the purely algebraic identities holding unconditionally for any perturbation $F$, omitting parts (3),(5),(6), which characterize $\operatorname{opt}(D)$ under the book's own biconjugacy hypothesis (8.55) — a hypothesis this mission's M-convex-specific Theorem 8.59 later establishes directly rather than invoking Theorem 8.53's general form; and Proposition 8.56 is placed with only part (1), the $K_0$ closed form, omitting part (2), the $K_r$ closed form via the infimal convolution $\delta_{-B}\square r[y]$, not independently needed elsewhere in this chunk. One numbered result nominally in this chunk's page range, Theorem 8.46, is not re-placed here: it was already found and placed as a milestone in mission 30-ch08c-conjugacyduality, whose own page range overlaps this chunk's by one page (PDF251/printed 233) — see HARD.md. Contributions completing any of the twelve sorrys are welcome; the goal and Theorem 8.57 carry the most independent proof content.

Selected references

• K. Murota, Discrete Convex Analysis, SIAM, 2003. DOI: 10.1137/1.9780898718508.
• R. T. Rockafellar, "Conjugate duality and optimization," CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, SIAM, 1974 [177] (the classical conjugate-duality framework this mission's section 8.4 adapts to the discrete M-/L-convex setting).
• K. Murota, "Discrete convex analysis," Mathematical Programming, 83 (1998), pp. 313-371 [140] (the original source of M2-/L2-convexity, Theorems 8.35, 8.36, 8.45, 8.46, 8.48, and the Lagrange duality theory of section 8.4).

Motivation

Mission 29-ch08b-conjugacyduality opened chapter 8's account of M2-convex functions — sums of M-convex functions — proving their domains and minimizers are M2-convex and that they are integrally convex. This mission completes that program and builds its exact mirror for L2-convex functions (integer infimal convolutions of L-convex functions), the class that appears on the opposite side of Edmonds's intersection theorem's min-max relation from M2-convexity. It proves optimality and proximity theorems for both classes, shows their subdifferentials add (a discrete analogue of the classical subdifferential sum rule), derives how the Legendre-Fenchel transform interacts with the sum/infimal-convolution operation, and — the technically hardest result in the whole cluster — establishes that L♮₂-convex functions are integrally convex, by a genuinely different and more intricate argument than the M2-side analogue required.

Setting

Fix a finite ground set $V$. A function $g : \mathbb Z^V \to \mathbb R \cup \{+\infty\}$ is L2-convex if $g = g_1 \square g_2$, the integer infimal convolution $g_1\square g_2(p) = \inf\{g_1(p_1)+g_2(p_2) : p_1+p_2=p\}$, of two L-convex functions $g_1, g_2$; L$^\natural_2$-convex if the summands are L$^\natural$-convex. An M2-convex function is a sum $f_1+f_2$ of two M-convex functions (mission 29-ch08b-conjugacyduality). The integer subdifferential $\partial_{\mathbb Z} f(x)$ and real subdifferential $\partial_{\mathbb R} f(x)$ generalize the subgradient set to integer- and real-valued perturbation directions respectively.

Formalization targets

Goal: L$^\natural_2$-convex functions are integrally convex (Theorem 8.42)

Every L$^\natural_2$-convex function is integrally convex, and in particular every L$^\natural_2$-convex set is integrally convex. The book's own proof is the most intricate argument in this cluster: given $p$ in the Minkowski sum $D_1+D_2$ of two L-convex sets, it constructs an explicit representation of $p$ as a convex combination of finitely many integer points of $D_1+D_2$, all lying in $p$'s own integral neighborhood, via the sorted fractional-part values of a chosen decomposition $p=p_1+p_2$ — a genuinely different technique from the M2-side analogue (Theorem 8.31), whose proof is a two-line consequence of convex extensibility.

Supporting structural targets

Eleven further results build the M2-/L2-convex theory in parallel. Theorems 8.33-8.34 give the M2-optimality criterion (a nonnegative-sum condition over cyclic exchange families) and its scaling-based proximity theorem; Theorem 8.35 shows subdifferentials of a sum of M$^\natural$- convex functions add, and that subdifferentials of M2-/M$^\natural_2$-convex functions are L2-/L$^\natural_2$-convex; Theorem 8.36 computes the conjugate of a sum as the infimal convolution of conjugates, with biconjugacy recovering the original sum. Propositions 8.39-8.41 transfer L-(natural-)convexity from summands to the domain and minimizer set of an L2-convex function, and give the precise attainment condition under which a linearly-perturbed infimal convolution's minimizer set splits additively. Theorems 8.43-8.44 give the L2-optimality and L2-proximity theorems, the exact L-side mirrors of Theorems 8.33-8.34; Theorem 8.45 mirrors Theorem 8.35 for subdifferentials of an infimal convolution; and Theorem 8.46 (found by direct reading, immediately following 8.45 and explicitly named by the book as 8.36's counterpart) shows biconjugacy for L$^\natural$-convex infimal convolutions.

Significance

The M2-/L2-convex function classes are where discrete convex analysis's abstract machinery meets concrete combinatorial optimization: Edmonds's matroid intersection theorem and its generalizations are literally statements about M2-convex minimization, with the L2-convex side supplying the dual bound. Theorem 8.35's subdifferential additivity is the discrete analogue of the classical Moreau-Rockafellar sum rule, and its proof (via the M-convex intersection theorem, already a milestone of mission 10-conjugacy-i) shows the sum rule holding without the constraint-qualification technicalities the continuous theory needs — a case where the discrete theory is cleaner than its continuous ancestor. Theorem 8.42's harder, dedicated proof technique is itself informative: it demonstrates that L2-convexity's combinatorial structure is not a routine transcription of the M2-convex case, foreshadowing the book's broader theme that M- and L-convexity, while conjugate, are not interchangeable in how their proofs actually work.

None of these results are open — they are Murota's account of the sum/infimal-convolution closure properties of M-convex and L-convex functions, continuing chapter 8's duality program into its most combinatorially concrete corner. What this mission contributes is a faithful, machine-checked formal statement of each, including one result (Theorem 8.46) the platform's own automated extractor missed, extending the shared Lean vocabulary (InfConv, L2Convex, M2ConvexSet) mission 29-ch08b-conjugacyduality began; no comparable formalization exists on the platform (see Formalization scope).

Difficulty

The naive approach to the goal would try to adapt the M2-side integral-convexity proof (a direct appeal to convex extensibility) verbatim; the book's own proof shows this does not work, requiring instead a from-scratch construction: decompose $p=p_1+p_2$, take fractional parts $a_1 = p_1-\lfloor p_1\rfloor$ and $a_2=\lceil p_2\rceil-p_2$, sort their combined distinct values, build threshold sets exactly as in the Lovász-extension construction, and verify each resulting integer point $q_i = \lfloor p_1\rfloor+\chi_{U_{1i}}+\lceil p_2\rceil-\chi_{U_{2i}}$ both lies in $D_1+D_2$ (via L-convex-set closure properties, Theorem 5.10) and in $p$'s integral neighborhood (a case split on whether $p(v)$ is itself an integer) — a genuinely multi-stage combinatorial argument with no single-inequality shortcut, unlike almost every other result in this mission.

Formalization scope

Ground-set elements are a Fintype V with DecidableEq; M2-/L2-convex functions are (V→ℤ)→WithTop ℝ. All twelve numbered results found in this chunk's page range are placed, with no partial-coverage scope reduction needed — every clause of every result, including all three parts of Theorems 8.35 and 8.45 and the full cyclic-exchange condition of Theorems 8.33-8.34, is stated in full. One numbered result nominally in this chunk's page range, Theorem 8.32, is not re-placed here: it was already found and placed as a milestone in mission 29-ch08b-conjugacyduality, whose own page range overlaps this chunk's by one page (PDF245) — see HARD.md. "g1□g2 > −∞" hypotheses are omitted rather than translated, since WithTop ℝ has no −∞ element to violate. This mission's base vocabulary is redeclared verbatim from mission 29-ch08b-conjugacyduality rather than imported, since sibling drafts in this series cannot yet reference one another; ConvexConjugate is redeclared from mission 10-conjugacy-i. Contributions completing any of the twelve sorrys are welcome; the goal and Theorem 8.35 carry the most independent proof content.

Selected references

• K. Murota, Discrete Convex Analysis, SIAM, 2003. DOI: 10.1137/1.9780898718508.
• K. Murota and A. Shioura, "Extreme points of a generalized polymatroid," Discrete Applied Mathematics, 152 (2005), pp. 268-278 [153] (the L2-convex integral-convexity proof this mission's goal is drawn from).
• K. Murota and A. Tamura, "Application of M-convex submodular flow problem to mathematical economics," Japan Journal of Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 20 (2003), pp. 257-277 [162] (the M2-proximity theorem, Theorem 8.34).

Motivation

Chunk 10 formalized the discrete conjugacy theorem — the Legendre-Fenchel transform's bijection between the classes of M-convex and L-convex functions — and, along the way, a function-level generalization of Edmonds's intersection theorem. Section 8.4 turns that machinery toward a different question: not "how are two convexity classes related," but "when does a discrete optimization problem have a dual that meets it with equality." The classical route to such strong-duality results in continuous convex programming — Lagrangian relaxation, an embedding of the problem in a family of perturbed problems, and a saddle-point characterization of when primal and dual values coincide — has a discrete analogue that needs no continuity, no differentiability, and no convexity in the classical sense at all: only the elementary fact that the Legendre-Fenchel transform, once discretized, is still an involution on the right class of functions. This mission formalizes that discrete Lagrangian duality framework and its central saddle-point theorem, in full generality — before the book specializes it, in the section that follows, to the specific M-convex perturbation that gives the chapter's headline strong-duality result for M-convex programs.

Setting

Let $V$ and $U$ be finite ground sets. A perturbation of an optimization problem $\min\{f(x) : x \in \mathbb Z^V\}$ is a function $F : \mathbb Z^V \times \mathbb Z^U \to \mathbb Z \cup \{+\infty\}$ such that $F(x,0) = f(x)$ for all $x$ (Eq. (8.54)) and, for each fixed $x$, $F(x,\cdot)$ is self-biconjugate: $F(x,\cdot)^{\bullet\bullet} = F(x,\cdot)$ under the discrete Legendre-Fenchel transform of chunk 10 (Eq. (8.55)). The Lagrangian function is $K(x,y) = \inf\{F(x,u) + \langle u,y\rangle : u \in \mathbb Z^U\}$ (Eq. (8.58)), valued in $\mathbb Z \cup \{\pm\infty\}$ (formalized in EReal, since both the infimum and the supremum below can be genuinely unbounded). The dual objective is $g(y) = \inf\{K(x,y) : x \in \mathbb Z^V\}$ (Eq. (8.60)). Writing $\inf(P) = \inf_x f(x)$, $\sup(D) = \sup_y g(y)$, $\operatorname{opt}(P) = \{x : f(x) = \inf(P)\}$, $\operatorname{opt}(D) = \{y : g(y) = \sup(D)\}$, the primal problem $P$ is to minimize $f$ over $\mathbb Z^V$ and the dual problem $D$ is to maximize $g$ over $\mathbb Z^U$.

Formalization targets

Goal: Theorem 8.54 (the saddle-point theorem)

Assuming $F$ is self-biconjugate (Eq. (8.55)): both $\inf(P)$ and $\sup(D)$ are finite and $\min(P) = \max(D)$ if and only if there exist $\bar x \in \mathbb Z^V$, $\bar y \in \mathbb Z^U$ with $K(\bar x,\bar y)$ finite and $K(x,\bar y) \le K(\bar x,\bar y) \le K(\bar x,y)$ for all $x,y$ — a saddle point of the Lagrangian kernel. When this holds, $\bar x \in \operatorname{opt}(P)$ and $\bar y \in \operatorname{opt}(D)$.

Milestones: Theorem 8.52, Proposition 8.51(1)-(2)

Theorem 8.52 (weak duality): $\inf(P) \ge \sup(D)$ always, with no biconjugacy hypothesis on $F$ at all — the baseline the saddle-point theorem sharpens to equality. Proposition 8.51(1)-(2): under self-biconjugacy, the perturbation $F$ (and hence the primal objective $f$) is itself recoverable from the Lagrangian kernel $K$ by a supremum, $F(x,u) = \sup_y\{K(x,y) - \langle u,y\rangle\}$ and $f(x) = \sup_y K(x,y)$ — the algebraic identity the saddle-point theorem's proof turns on directly.

Significance

The result itself. The saddle-point theorem is the general-purpose engine behind every strong-duality result the book proves for specific classes of discrete optimization problems: the book's own next section specializes it (via a particular choice of $F$ built from an M-convex regularizer $r$) to obtain strong duality for M-convex programs, but the theorem itself needs no M-convexity, no submodularity, and no exchange axiom — only the elementary self-biconjugacy of a perturbation under the discrete Legendre-Fenchel transform. It is, in that sense, the most general and most reusable strong-duality statement in the book: any future mission proving strong duality for a specific class of discrete programs (M-convex, M2-convex, network flow, or otherwise) by exhibiting a self-biconjugate perturbation can cite this theorem directly rather than reproving the saddle-point argument from scratch.

Formalizing it. No matching item exists on the platform for a discrete Lagrangian saddle- point theorem, discrete weak duality, or this perturbation-based duality framework. (A prior-art search turned up an unrelated continuous Lagrangian saddle-point theorem for convex cones, Luenberger's Chapter 8 §8.4, formalized as VectorSpaceOpt.lagrangian_saddle_sufficient_pointed — a genuinely different setting: no discreteness, no biconjugacy hypothesis, and a one-directional sufficiency statement rather than this mission's iff. Not reused.) This mission gives the first formal statement of discrete Lagrangian duality, and directly reuses chunk 10's ConvexConjugate apparatus (self-biconjugacy is stated using chunk 10's own conjugate-of-conjugate composition), demonstrating exactly the kind of shared-substrate payoff the discrete conjugacy theorem was built to provide.

Difficulty

The saddle-point theorem's "only if" direction is not a routine unwinding of definitions: given $\min(P) = \max(D)$ at finite common value, one must construct the saddle point $(\bar x,\bar y)$ — the book's proof takes $\bar x \in \operatorname{opt}(P)$, $\bar y \in \operatorname{opt}(D)$ (which exist because the infimum/supremum are attained at a finite optimum) and verifies the sandwiching inequality using Proposition 8.51(2)'s identity $f(x) = \sup_y K(x,y)$ together with weak duality, rather than by any direct algebraic manipulation of $K$ alone. Skipping straight to a "trivial" biconditional that never invokes Proposition 8.51 would misrepresent the actual proof structure the book relies on for exactly this direction.

Formalization scope

$V, U$ are Fintype ground types; LagrangianKernel, DualObjective, InfP, SupD are EReal-valued to keep both the defining infima/suprema total (a complete lattice) without an artificial finiteness side-condition; OptP, OptD compare PrimalValue/DualObjective against InfP/SupD after casting through chunk 10's ToEReal, mirroring that chunk's own round-trip convention. "Finite" throughout is formalized as ≠ ⊤ ∧ ≠ ⊥ in EReal. The perturbation $F$ itself is left fully abstract (an arbitrary function satisfying the self-biconjugacy hypothesis where needed) — this mission does not draft the specific M-convex perturbation $F_r$ (Eq. (8.61)) that the book's next subsection (§8.4.3) uses to specialize this framework to M-convex programs, nor Theorem 8.59 (the resulting M-convex strong-duality theorem) itself, which needs that specific perturbation plus its own regularity conditions (REG)/(OBJ) and a chain of M-convex-specific propositions (8.55–8.58) beyond what the general framework built here provides. A trivializing formalization would state the saddle-point theorem's sandwiching inequality with a weaker order (e.g., only one of the two directions) or would omit the "$\bar x \in \operatorname{opt}(P), \bar y \in \operatorname{opt}(D)$" consequence clause; neither is done — both inequalities and the full consequence clause are included exactly as the book states them.

Selected references

• K. Murota, Discrete Convex Analysis, SIAM, 2003. DOI: 10.1137/1.9780898718508.

Motivation

The Legendre-Fenchel transform is the single most structurally important operation in convex analysis: for a proper closed convex function $f$, its conjugate $f^\bullet(p) = \sup_x \{\langle p,x\rangle - f(x)\}$ is again proper closed convex, and the transform is an involution — $f^{\bullet\bullet} = f$. This one fact underlies duality theory across optimization: every strong-duality theorem is, at bottom, a statement about conjugate pairs. Chapters 6 and 7 of this book developed M-convex and L-convex functions as if they were two separate theories, each with its own exchange axiom, optimality criterion, and proximity theorem. Chapter 8 reveals they were never separate: the Legendre-Fenchel transform, suitably discretized, is a bijection between the two classes. This mission formalizes that discrete conjugacy theorem together with its classical real-valued precursor and a genuine function-level generalization of Edmonds's intersection theorem, completing the picture that chunks 06 through 09 built the two halves of.

Setting

Let $V$ be a finite ground set. For $f : \mathbb R^V \to \mathbb R \cup \{+\infty\}$, the Legendre-Fenchel transform is $f^\bullet(p) = \sup\{\langle p,x\rangle - f(x) : x \in \mathbb R^V\}$; $f$ is submodular if $f(x)+f(y) \ge f(x\vee y)+f(x\wedge y)$ and supermodular under the reverse inequality. For $f : \mathbb Z^V \to \mathbb R \cup \{+\infty\}$, the discrete Legendre-Fenchel transform restricts the same supremum formula to $p \in \mathbb Z^V$: $f^\bullet(p) = \sup\{\langle p,x\rangle - f(x) : x \in \mathbb Z^V\}$ for $p \in \mathbb Z^V$ — a genuinely different object from the real-valued transform, since the supremum is now over integer $x$ only, and the codomain is checked back against the discrete M-/L-convexity axioms of chunks 06–09. The integer biconjugate $f^{\bullet\bullet}$ is the transform applied twice. $f$ is integer valued if every finite value it takes is an integer (the classes $M[\mathbb Z\to\mathbb Z]$, $L[\mathbb Z\to\mathbb Z]$ of the goal theorem are exactly the M-/L-convex functions with this property).

Formalization targets

Goal: Theorem 8.12 (the discrete conjugacy theorem)

(1) The classes $M[\mathbb Z\to\mathbb Z]$ and $L[\mathbb Z\to\mathbb Z]$ are in one-to-one correspondence under the discrete Legendre-Fenchel transform: for $f \in M[\mathbb Z\to\mathbb Z]$ and $g \in L[\mathbb Z\to\mathbb Z]$, $f^\bullet \in L[\mathbb Z\to\mathbb Z]$, $g^\bullet \in M[\mathbb Z\to\mathbb Z]$, $f^{\bullet\bullet}=f$, and $g^{\bullet\bullet}=g$. (2) The same correspondence holds between $M^\natural[\mathbb Z\to\mathbb Z]$ and $L^\natural[\mathbb Z\to\mathbb Z]$.

Milestones: Theorem 8.1, Proposition 8.11, Theorem 8.17

Theorem 8.1: the conjugate of a real-valued submodular function is always supermodular — the classical warm-up, and evidence that submodularity/supermodularity is not symmetric under conjugation on its own (the converse fails). Proposition 8.11: the integer biconjugate recovers $f$ at any point with a nonempty integer subdifferential — the fact that makes discrete biconjugation meaningful at all. Theorem 8.17 (the M-convex intersection theorem): a point jointly minimizes a sum of two M$^\natural$-convex functions if and only if a single linear functional separately certifies it as a minimizer of each perturbed function — the function-level generalization of chunk 04's Edmonds's intersection theorem for M-convex sets.

Significance

The result itself. The discrete conjugacy theorem is, in the book's own words, "the unifying result of the entire book": every theorem proved separately for M-convex functions (chunks 06–07) has an exact mirror for L-convex functions (chunks 08–09) precisely because the Legendre-Fenchel transform carries one class to the other. Theorem 8.17's function-level Edmonds generalization shows the payoff directly — the classical matroid-intersection-style min-max duality of chunk 04 was never really about sets; it is a special case (indicator functions) of a duality that holds for the whole class of M-convex functions.

Formalizing it. No matching item exists on the platform for conjugate functions, discrete conjugacy, or this generality of intersection theorem. This mission gives the first formal statement of the discrete conjugacy theorem, distinguishing it carefully from its real-valued (polyhedral) precursor, Theorem 8.4 — a genuinely different, harder theorem this mission does not draft (see Formalization scope), since the integer bijection needs the M-/L-proximity theorems of chunks 06–09 to control integrality under convex extension, while the real-valued case does not.

Difficulty

The obvious approach — try to prove the discrete conjugacy theorem directly by mimicking the real-valued proof (Theorem 8.4) with ℤ in place of ℝ everywhere — fails, because the real-valued proof's key step (Proposition 8.3, an infimal-convolution argument comparing arg min sets of perturbed polyhedral functions) has no immediate discrete analogue: a discrete arg min need not vary continuously with the perturbation the way a polyhedral one does. The book's actual strategy instead routes through the convex extension of the discrete function (chunk 06/08's bridge to chapter 3's integral convexity), applies the already-proved real-valued conjugacy theorem to the extension, and then must separately argue that the resulting conjugate, restricted back to integer points, is again integer-valued and satisfies the discrete exchange axiom — an argument that needs different treatment depending on whether the original function's domain is bounded or unbounded (an exhaustion argument via restriction to a growing integer interval, invoking chunk 06's proximity theorem to control convergence). Skipping this discreteness argument and treating the real-valued theorem as if it settled the integer case would silently discard exactly the chapter's own point.

Formalization scope

The ground set $V$ is a Fintype with DecidableEq. ConvexConjugate (the discrete transform) has domain and codomain both (V → ℤ) → WithTop ℝ, obtained by taking the defining supremum in EReal (a complete lattice, so it is always total) and projecting back via a new FromEReal map — this is what lets the biconjugate f•• typecheck as an equality of functions of the same type as f. ConvexConjugateR (the real-valued transform, used only by the milestone Theorem 8.1) is a separate object with no shared code, per the explicit warning against conflating the two transforms; the two never appear in the same item.

A trivializing formalization of the goal would draft only the real-valued case (Theorem 8.4) as if it were the discrete theorem, or would silently allow WithTop ℝ's subtraction-avoidance convention to change which values are compared; neither is done. Theorem 8.4 itself (the polyhedral conjugacy theorem) is not drafted in this mission at all — it would require a fresh, otherwise-unused polyhedral M-/L-convex-function layer on Rⱽ that no other item here needs (see MODERATION_NOTES.md). The M-/L-separation theorems (8.15, 8.16) and the Fenchel-type duality theorem (8.21) are likewise left for a follow-on mission; contributions building the polyhedral bridge or the separation theorems, which depend on machinery this mission establishes, are welcome.

Selected references

• K. Murota, Discrete Convex Analysis, SIAM, 2003. DOI: 10.1137/1.9780898718508.

Motivation

This mission completes chapter 7's L-convex function theory and closes the book on it. It first finishes the theory of positively homogeneous L-convex functions — showing they coincide exactly with the classical Lovász extensions of submodular set functions, a one-to-one correspondence that recognizes forty years of submodular-optimization machinery as a special case of L-convex function theory. It then proves the L-side capstone this series has been building toward since mission 26-ch07b-lconvexfunctions: polyhedral L-convexity is characterized simultaneously by directional derivatives, subdifferentials, and weighted-minimizer polyhedra — the exact mirror of what mission 24-ch06d-mconvexfunctions proved for M-convex functions. Finally it develops quasi L-convex functions, the L-side analogue of mission 25-ch06e-mconvexfunctions's quasi M-convex functions, ending exactly where chapter 7 itself ends.

Setting

Fix a finite ground set $V$. The class $0L[\mathbb R \to \mathbb R]$ consists of polyhedral L-convex functions that are positively homogeneous; $0L[\mathbb Z \to \mathbb Z]$, its integer-valued integer-domain analogue. A positively homogeneous L-convex function $g$ induces a submodular set function $\rho_g(X) = g(\chi_X)$; conversely the Lovász extension $\hat\rho$ of a submodular set function is positively homogeneous L-convex. The base polyhedron $B(\rho) = \{x \in \mathbb R^V : x(X) \le \rho(X)\ \forall X,\ x(V) = \rho(V)\}$ of a submodular $\rho$ is always an M-convex polyhedron. A function $g : \mathbb Z^V \to \mathbb R \cup \{+\infty\}$ is quasi submodular (QSB) if $g(p\wedge q) \le g(p)$ or $g(p\vee q) \le g(q)$ for all $p,q$; the weaker (QSBw) requires only $\max\{g(p),g(q)\} \ge \min\{g(p\wedge q), g(p\vee q)\}$.

Formalization targets

Goal: the four characterizations of polyhedral L-convexity (Theorem 7.45)

For a polyhedral convex function $g$ with $\operatorname{dom}_{\mathbb R} g \ne \emptyset$: $g$ is L-convex if and only if every directional derivative $g'(p;\cdot)$ is $0L[\mathbb R \to \mathbb R]$, if and only if every subdifferential $\partial_{\mathbb R} g(p)$ is an M-convex polyhedron, if and only if every weighted minimizer set is an L-convex polyhedron. Not present in this chunk's own extraction table (its label opens mid-paragraph, missed by the same extractor failure already documented for mission 25-ch06e-mconvexfunctions's Theorem 6.68), found by direct reading and chosen as goal because it is the exact L-side mirror of mission 24-ch06d-mconvexfunctions's own milestone Theorem 6.63, and its proof is assembled entirely from results already in this series (Theorem 7.43, Proposition 7.34, Theorem 7.40).

Supporting structural targets

Fifteen further results build the two remaining pieces of chapter 7's theory. Propositions 7.37-7.39 and Theorem 7.40 establish the one-to-one correspondence between positively homogeneous L-convex functions and submodular set functions via the Lovász extension; Proposition 7.41 gives a minimizer-polyhedron characterization of this class, and Proposition 7.42 shows directional derivatives of L-convex functions automatically land in it. Theorem 7.43 — the L-side mirror of mission 24-ch06d-mconvexfunctions's own goal, Theorem 6.61 — proves the directional- derivative/subdifferential correspondence via the induced submodular set function's base polyhedron; Proposition 7.44 checks consistency at integer points, and Theorem 7.46 refines Theorem 7.45 to the integral case. Theorem 7.49 (also missed by the extractor) gives the quasi-submodularity implication hierarchy and its perturbation-equivalence capstone, mirroring mission 25-ch06e-mconvexfunctions's Theorem 6.68 exactly. Proposition 7.50 and Theorems 7.51-7.52 build the level-set/perturbation machinery quasi submodularity needs; Theorems 7.53-7.54 (both missed by the extractor, the latter's full statement requiring one page beyond this chunk's nominal range, at the very end of chapter 7) give the quasi L-optimality and quasi L-proximity theorems.

Significance

The 0L/submodular correspondence (Theorem 7.40) is the precise sense in which L-convex function theory generalizes submodular set function theory rather than merely resembling it: every submodular set function is literally the restriction to $\{0,1\}^V$ of a positively homogeneous L-convex function, and every algorithm for one transfers to the other through this exact dictionary. The goal, Theorem 7.45, completes the parallel structure this series has built since chapter 6: M-convexity and L-convexity are now each characterized in the same four convex-analytic vocabularies, setting up chapter 8's conjugacy theorem, which will show these two characterizations are not merely analogous but literally dual to each other under the Legendre-Fenchel transform. The quasi-submodularity results matter for the same reason as their M-side counterparts: chapter 10's algorithms for L-convex-function minimization remain correct under nonlinear rescalings that destroy L-convexity itself but preserve quasi submodularity.

None of these results are open — they are Murota's account of how far L-convex function theory extends beyond the polyhedral case (to positive homogeneity and its submodular-function incarnation) and how far its exchange-style inequality can be relaxed while preserving optimization theory (to quasi submodularity), mirroring chapter 6's identical two-part program for M-convex functions. What this mission contributes is a faithful, machine-checked formal statement of each, including four theorems (7.45, 7.49, 7.53, 7.54) the platform's own automated extractor missed entirely — one of them requiring a page beyond this chunk's own nominal range to complete, since chapter 7 ends there and this is the last mission covering it — extending the shared Lean vocabulary (ZeroLR, BasePolyhedron, QSBw) this series builds on; no comparable formalization exists on the platform (see Formalization scope).

Difficulty

The naive approach to the goal would try to prove all six pairwise implications among its four conditions independently; the book's own proof instead chains through results already established: (a)⇒(b) is Proposition 7.42, (a)⇒(c) is Theorem 7.43, (a)⇒(d) is Proposition 7.34, (b)⇔(c) uses the 0L/M0[R] correspondence, and (d)⇒(b) is the genuinely hard direction, requiring Proposition 7.41 applied to the directional derivative itself (showing $\arg\min(g'(p;\cdot)[-x])$ is an L-convex cone by an explicit description via the admissible-potential set of the distance function underlying $\arg\min g[-x]$). The remaining combinatorial difficulty in this block is in Theorem 7.43's proof: identifying $\partial_{\mathbb R} g(p)$ with the base polyhedron $B(\rho_{g,p})$ requires the L-optimality criterion (Theorem 7.33, mission 27-ch07c-lconvexfunctions) applied pointwise, a chain of logical equivalences with no single-step shortcut, exactly mirroring how mission 24-ch06d-mconvexfunctions's Theorem 6.61 needed the M-optimality criterion.

Formalization scope

Ground-set elements are a Fintype V with DecidableEq; L-convex functions are (V→ℝ)→WithTop ℝ (polyhedral) or (V→ℤ)→WithTop ℝ (integer-domain). All sixteen numbered results found in this chunk's page range — the twelve in BRIEF.md's own table plus four the extractor missed (Theorems 7.45, 7.49, 7.53, 7.54) — are placed, with two documented, content-preserving scope decisions: Theorem 7.43 omits the dual-integral refinement clauses for L[R→R|Z]/L[Z→Z] (the same decision mission 24-ch06d-mconvexfunctions's Theorem 6.61 made), and Proposition 7.50 states the general inequalities without restating their "In particular" specializations, which add no independent content — see HARD.md. "$\inf g[-x]>-\infty$" is replaced by the equivalent (ArgMinR ...).Nonempty hypothesis throughout, matching mission 25-ch06e-mconvexfunctions's identical substitution. This mission's base vocabulary is redeclared from missions 20-ch04b-mconvexsets, 21-ch05b-lconvexsets, 23-24-ch06*-mconvexfunctions, and 26-27-ch07*-lconvexfunctions rather than imported, since sibling drafts in this series cannot yet reference one another. Contributions completing any of the sixteen sorrys are welcome; the goal and Theorem 7.43 carry the most independent proof content.

Selected references

• K. Murota, Discrete Convex Analysis, SIAM, 2003. DOI: 10.1137/1.9780898718508.
• K. Murota and A. Shioura, "M-convex function on generalized polymatroid," Mathematics of Operations Research, 24 (1999), pp. 95-105 [152] (the polyhedral theory Theorems 7.26-7.46 are drawn from).
• P. Milgrom and C. Shannon, "Monotone comparative statics," Econometrica, 62 (1994), pp. 157-180 [129] (the origin of the quasi-submodularity condition (SSQSB)).

Motivation

L-convex functions were defined purely combinatorially, on the integer lattice. Chapter 6's M-convex theory showed that combinatorial definition always extends to a genuine convex function on real space (missions 23-ch06c-mconvexfunctions/24-ch06d-mconvexfunctions); this mission carries out the identical program for the L side. It first shows L$^\natural$-convexity is exactly integral convexity plus ordinary submodularity — a clean synonym that also explains why submodular set functions are a natural special case — then builds the entire polyhedral (real-variable) theory of L-convex functions: the axioms (SBF[R])/(TRF[R]), two practical local criteria for verifying submodularity without checking every pair of points, the fact that the classical Lovász extension of a submodular set function is itself a polyhedral L-convex function, the six-operation closure toolkit, and — this mission's goal — the L-optimality criterion in its full polyhedral generality, characterizing global optimality by finitely many directional derivatives.

Setting

Fix a finite ground set $V$. A polyhedral convex function $g : \mathbb R^V \to \mathbb R \cup \{+\infty\}$ with nonempty effective domain is polyhedral L-convex, $g \in L[\mathbb R \to \mathbb R]$, if it satisfies (SBF[R]): $g(p)+g(q) \ge g(p\vee q)+g(p\wedge q)$, and (TRF[R]): $\exists r \in \mathbb R$, $g(p+\alpha\mathbf 1) = g(p)+\alpha r$ for all $p \in \mathbb R^V$, $\alpha \in \mathbb R$; it is polyhedral L$^\natural$-convex if its lift to one extra real coordinate is polyhedral L-convex. A function $g : \mathbb Z^V \to \mathbb R \cup \{+\infty\}$ is integrally convex if its convex closure agrees, at every real point, with the closure taken using only that point's integral neighborhood. The Lovász extension $\hat\rho$ of a submodular set function $\rho$ is the piecewise-linear interpolation built from the sorted distinct components of $p \in \mathbb R^V$. The directional derivative $g'(p;d)$ is $\inf_{t>0}(g(p+td)-g(p))/t$.

Formalization targets

Goal: the polyhedral L-optimality criterion (Theorem 7.33)

For a polyhedral L-convex function $g$ and $p \in \operatorname{dom}_{\mathbb R} g$: $g(p) \le g(q)$ for all $q$ if and only if $g'(p;\chi_Y) \ge 0$ for every $Y \subseteq V$ and $g'(p;\mathbf 1)=0$; for polyhedral L$^\natural$-convex $g$, the criterion simplifies to $g'(p;\pm\chi_Y) \ge 0$ for every $Y$. This is the direct L-side mirror of mission 24-ch06d-mconvexfunctions's M-optimality criterion (Theorem 6.52) and the polyhedral generalization of mission 08-lconvex-functions-i's integer-domain L-optimality criterion (Theorem 7.14): checking global optimality against exponentially many points reduces to $|V|+1$ (or $2|V|$) directional-derivative inequalities.

Supporting structural targets

Twelve further results build the polyhedral theory from the ground up. Theorems 7.20-7.21 identify L$^\natural$-convexity with the conjunction of ordinary submodularity and integral convexity — a genuinely different, function-analytic characterization from the exchange-axiom- style definitions used so far. Propositions 7.23-7.24 give two practical sufficient conditions for verifying (SBF[R]) locally, at a single scale, rather than globally. Proposition 7.25 shows the Lovász extension of any submodular set function is automatically polyhedral L-convex — not in this chunk's own extraction table (its label is preceded by an unlabeled restatement of the same fact, which evidently confused the extractor), found and placed by direct reading. Theorem 7.26 shows an L-convex function's convex extension, when polyhedral, inherits polyhedral L-convexity, continuing mission 26-ch07b-lconvexfunctions's Theorem 7.19. Theorems 7.28-7.32 restate the discrete theory's core equivalences (translation submodularity, the L/L$^\natural$ correspondence, the six basic operations, restrictions) in the polyhedral setting, and Proposition 7.34 shows minimizer sets of linearly-perturbed polyhedral L-convex functions are themselves L-convex polyhedra — flagged by the book itself as a partial result whose full converse characterization (Theorem 7.45) lies beyond this chunk's range.

Significance

Theorems 7.20-7.21's synonym is structurally important: it means every algorithm and theorem already known for submodular-function minimization over $\{0,1\}^V$-type domains applies, after a midpoint-convexity check, to the vastly larger class of integer-lattice L$^\natural$-convex functions, with no new proof technique required. Proposition 7.25 is the bridge that lets the combinatorial Lovász extension — the workhorse of submodular optimization for forty years — be recognized as a special case of the polyhedral L-convex function theory this mission builds, explaining why algorithms for one transfer so readily to the other. The goal, Theorem 7.33, is the precise tool chapter 10's continuous-relaxation algorithms for L-convex-function minimization actually verify against: a scaling algorithm's claimed optimum is confirmed correct exactly by checking the criterion's finitely many directional-derivative inequalities.

None of these results are open — they are Murota's account of how the integer-lattice theory of L-convexity survives, result by result, the passage to polyhedral convex functions on $\mathbb R^V$, mirroring chapter 6's identical program for M-convexity. What this mission contributes is a faithful, machine-checked formal statement of each, including one result (Proposition 7.25) the platform's own automated extractor missed, extending the shared Lean vocabulary (SBFR, TRFR, LovaszExtension, DirDeriv) this series builds on; no comparable formalization exists on the platform (see Formalization scope).

Difficulty

The naive approach to the goal would try to verify $g(p) \le g(q)$ directly against every $q \in \mathbb R^V$; the book's actual proof instead reduces this to the finite family of directional derivatives via Theorem 7.20's integral-convexity fact (an L$^\natural$-convex function's local behavior determines its global behavior) applied to the polyhedral setting through Theorem 3.21's general optimality criterion for integrally convex functions — a two-layer reduction (polyhedral $\to$ integral-convexity $\to$ finite local check) with no direct one-step argument. The genuine combinatorial content in this block is in Proposition 7.25's proof: showing the Lovász extension is submodular requires the finite-valued case (a direct calculation split on whether the two perturbed coordinates land in the same or different threshold sets) and then a limiting argument over a sequence of finite-valued truncations $\rho_k \to \rho$ for the general, possibly-infinite case — a genuine two-step argument, not a single inequality chase.

Formalization scope

Ground-set elements are a Fintype V with DecidableEq; polyhedral L-(natural-)convex functions are (V→ℝ)→WithTop ℝ. All thirteen numbered results found in this chunk's page range are placed, with one documented scope reduction: Proposition 7.24 states only part (1) (the unconditional-on-magnitude sufficient condition), not part (2)'s sharper, sorted-index-restricted version, which needs the same SortedValues apparatus a second time for no other result's benefit — see HARD.md. "$g_U > -\infty$" and its variants are replaced by the equivalent (DomR ...).Nonempty hypothesis throughout, matching mission 24-ch06d-mconvexfunctions's identical substitution. "Domain is closed"/"domain is an interval" (Propositions 7.23-7.24) are stated via Mathlib's IsClosed and Set.OrdConnected respectively, the latter being the precise order-theoretic notion of "interval" in a pointwise-ordered space. This mission's base vocabulary is redeclared from missions 08-lconvex-functions-i, 20-ch04b-mconvexsets (for the Lovász extension machinery), 21-ch05b-lconvexsets, 23-ch06c-mconvexfunctions/ 24-ch06d-mconvexfunctions, and 26-ch07b-lconvexfunctions rather than imported, since sibling drafts in this series cannot yet reference one another. Contributions completing any of the thirteen sorrys are welcome; the goal and Proposition 7.25 carry the most independent proof content.

Selected references

• K. Murota, Discrete Convex Analysis, SIAM, 2003. DOI: 10.1137/1.9780898718508.
• K. Murota and A. Shioura, "Extreme points of a generalized polymatroid," Discrete Applied Mathematics, 152 (2005), pp. 268-278 [152] (the polyhedral L-convex function theory this mission's real-variable results are drawn from).