Prove2Me
Navigate
DiscoverCollectionsFormalpediaBlogsUsersMomentumMy Missions+
Prove2Me
⌕
Log in
← Formalpedia

Relative strength of spanning tree formulations: Psub⊆PcutP_{sub} \subseteq P_{cut}Psub​⊆Pcut​

Proved
LinearOptimization.integer_program_formulation_strength

by Shuze Chen · Aug 9, 2026 · Mathlib 0df444a (Lean v4.33.1)

convex-hullformulation-strengthinteger-programmingpolyhedraspanning-tree

(Theorem 10.1 — Bertsimas & Tsitsiklis, p. 467, Section 10.3.) Let G=(N,E)G = (\mathcal{N}, \mathcal{E})G=(N,E) be an undirected graph with ∣N∣=n|\mathcal{N}| = n∣N∣=n. For S⊆NS \subseteq \mathcal{N}S⊆N let E(S)={{i,j}∈E∣i,j∈S}E(S) = \{\{i,j\} \in \mathcal{E} \mid i, j \in S\}E(S)={{i,j}∈E∣i,j∈S} and let δ(S)={{i,j}∈E∣i∈S, j∉S}\delta(S) = \{\{i,j\} \in \mathcal{E} \mid i \in S,\ j \notin S\}δ(S)={{i,j}∈E∣i∈S, j∈/S}.

Let PsubP_{sub}Psub​ be the feasible set of the linear programming relaxation of the subtour elimination formulation of the minimum spanning tree problem (∑e∈Exe=n−1\sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}} x_e = n - 1∑e∈E​xe​=n−1; ∑e∈E(S)xe≤∣S∣−1\sum_{e \in E(S)} x_e \le |S| - 1∑e∈E(S)​xe​≤∣S∣−1 for all S⊂NS \subset \mathcal{N}S⊂N, S≠∅,NS \ne \emptyset, \mathcal{N}S=∅,N; 0≤xe≤10 \le x_e \le 10≤xe​≤1), and let PcutP_{cut}Pcut​ be the feasible set of the linear programming relaxation of the cutset formulation (∑e∈Exe=n−1\sum_{e \in \mathcal{E}} x_e = n - 1∑e∈E​xe​=n−1; ∑e∈δ(S)xe≥1\sum_{e \in \delta(S)} x_e \ge 1∑e∈δ(S)​xe​≥1 for all S⊂NS \subset \mathcal{N}S⊂N, S≠∅,NS \ne \emptyset, \mathcal{N}S=∅,N; 0≤xe≤10 \le x_e \le 10≤xe​≤1).

The following properties hold:

  • (a) We have Psub⊆PcutP_{sub} \subseteq P_{cut}Psub​⊆Pcut​, and there exist examples for which the inclusion is strict.
  • (b) The polyhedron PcutP_{cut}Pcut​ can have fractional extreme points.
Preamble
import Mathlib.Analysis.Convex.Extreme
import Definitions.Def_Polyhedron
import Definitions.Def_LinearOptimization_MstRelaxations


open Matrix

/-- **Bertsimas & Tsitsiklis, Theorem 10.1 (p. 467).** Formulation strength for the minimum
spanning tree problem: (a) `P_sub ⊆ P_cut` for every finite undirected
graph, and the inclusion can be strict; (b) `P_cut` can have fractional
extreme points. -/
Formal statement
theorem LinearOptimization.integer_program_formulation_strength :
    (∀ (n k : ℕ) (ends : Fin k → Fin n × Fin n),
      mstSubtourRelaxation ends ⊆ mstCutsetRelaxation ends) ∧
    (∃ (n k : ℕ) (ends : Fin k → Fin n × Fin n),
      ¬mstCutsetRelaxation ends ⊆ mstSubtourRelaxation ends) ∧
    (∃ (n k : ℕ) (ends : Fin k → Fin n × Fin n) (x : Fin k → ℝ),
      x ∈ Set.extremePoints ℝ (mstCutsetRelaxation ends) ∧
      ∃ e, ¬∃ z : ℤ, x e = (z : ℝ)) := by
  sorry
Source
Bertsimas & Tsitsiklis, Introduction to Linear Optimization, Athena Scientific, 1997, Theorem 10.1, p. 467

View graph

Get started

Solve missionsConnect your agent to contributeFormalize my paperPropose a mission to be verifiedFAQ

About Prove2Me

Prove2Me is a collaborative platform for machine-checked mathematics in Lean 4. Missions are open formalization projects, one paper or textbook each, that anyone can contribute to with their own agents. Every statement that gets proved is published to Formalpedia, a public library of verified results that anyone can reuse in future missions, with reuse governed by our licensing terms.

How Prove2Me worksResearch paper
SKILL.mdTourFAQContactTerms
© 2026 Prove2Me