1: \documentclass[11pt]{amsart}

2: \usepackage{amssymb,amsmath,amscd,latexsym,epsfig,color,hyperref,graphics}

3: \usepackage[all,cmtip]{xy}

4: 

5: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]

6: \newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}

7: \newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}

8: \newtheorem{conjecture}[theorem]{Conjecture}

9: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}

10: \newtheorem{property}[theorem]{Property}

11: \newtheorem{problem}[theorem]{Problem}

12: \newtheorem{question}[theorem]{Question}

13: 

14: \theoremstyle{definition}

15: \newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}

16: \newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}

17: \newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}

18: \newtheorem{algorithm}[theorem]{Algorithm}

19: 

20: \def\NN{\ensuremath{\mathbb{N}}}

21: \def\ZZ{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}}}

22: \def\QQ{\ensuremath{\mathbb{Q}}} 

23: \def\RR{\ensuremath{\mathbb{R}}}

24: \newcommand{\CC}{{\mathbb C}}

25: \newcommand{\PP}{{\mathbb P}}  

26:                                                                          

27: \newcommand{\V}{{\mathcal V}}

28: \newcommand{\B}{{\mathcal B}}

29: \newcommand{\N}{{\mathcal N}}

30: \def\I{\ensuremath{\mathcal{I}}}

31: \def\F{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}

32: \def\G{\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}}

33: \def\K{\ensuremath{\mathcal{K}}}

34: \def\A{\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}

35: \def\C{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}

36: \def\D{\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}

37: \def\E{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}

38: \def\U{\ensuremath{\mathcal{U}}}

39: \def\L{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}

40: 

41: \def\aa{\ensuremath{{\bf{a}}}}

42: \def\bb{\ensuremath{{\bf{b}}}}

43: \def\cc{\ensuremath{{\bf{c}}}}

44: \def\dd{\ensuremath{{\bf{d}}}}

45: \def\ee{\ensuremath{{\bf{e}}}}

46: \def\ff{\ensuremath{{\bf{f}}}}

47: \def\hh{\ensuremath{{\bf{h}}}}

48: \def\kk{\ensuremath{{\bf{k}}}}

49: \def\mm{\ensuremath{{\bf{m}}}}

50: \def\pp{\ensuremath{{\bf{p}}}}

51: \def\qq{\ensuremath{{\bf{q}}}}

52: \def\rr{\ensuremath{{\bf{r}}}}

53: \def\ss{\ensuremath{{\bf{s}}}}

54: \def\uu{\ensuremath{{\bf{u}}}}

55: \def\vv{\ensuremath{{\bf{v}}}}

56: \def\ww{\ensuremath{{\bf{w}}}}

57: \def\xx{\ensuremath{{\bf{x}}}}

58: \def\yy{\ensuremath{{\bf{y}}}}

59: \def\zz{\ensuremath{{\bf{z}}}}

60: 

61: \def\ica{\ensuremath{{I_{{\mathcal C}_{\mathcal A}}}}}

62: \def\ia{\ensuremath{{{I_{\mathcal A}}}}}

63: \def\iastar{\ensuremath{{{I_{\mathcal A^\ast}}}}}

64: \def\init{\ensuremath{{{\textup{in}_{\prec}}}}}

65: \def\inomega{\ensuremath{\textup{in}_{\omega}}}

66: \def\inomegaprime{\ensuremath{\textup{in}_{\omega^\prime}}}

67: \def\inomegaone{\ensuremath{\textup{in}_{\omega_1}}}

68: \def\inomegatwo{\ensuremath{\textup{in}_{\omega_2}}}

69: \def\inu{\ensuremath{\textup{in}_{\u}}}

70: \def\inv{\ensuremath{\textup{in}_{\v}}}

71: \def\tin{\textup{in}}

72: \def\la{\ensuremath{{{\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal A}}}}}

73: \def\na{\ensuremath{{{\mathbb{N} A}}}}

74: \def\xa{\ensuremath{{{X_{\mathcal A}}}}}

75: \def\hia{\ensuremath{{{\mathbf{H}_{\ia}}}}}

76: \def\hica{\ensuremath{{{\mathbf{H}_{\ica}}}}}

77: \def\HG{\ensuremath{\textup{HG}}}

78: \def\GF{\ensuremath{\textup{GF}}}

79: \def\tif{\textup{if}}

80: 

81: \def\mult{\ensuremath{\textup{mult}}}

82: \def\rank{\ensuremath{\textup{rank}}}

83: \def\max{\ensuremath{\textup{max}}}

84: \def\min{\ensuremath{\textup{min}}}

85: \def\supp{\ensuremath{\textup{supp}}}

86: \def\cone{\ensuremath{\textup{cone}}}

87: \def\conv{\ensuremath{\textup{conv}}}

88: \def\cl{\ensuremath{\textup{cl}}}

89: \def\deg{\ensuremath{\textup{deg}}}

90: \def\ker{\ensuremath{\textup{ker}}}

91: \def\ass{\ensuremath{\textup{Ass}}}

92: \def\top{\ensuremath{\textup{top}}}

93: \def\pos{\ensuremath{\textup{pos}}}

94: \newcommand{\iso}{\simeq}

95: \newcommand{\bigo}{{\mathcal O}}

96: \newcommand{\todo}[1]{\vspace{5 mm}\par \noindent \marginpar{\textsc{ToDo}}

97: \framebox{\begin{minipage}[c]{0.95 \textwidth} \tt #1

98: \end{minipage}}\vspace{5 mm}\par}

99: 

100: 

101: \def\proof{\smallskip\noindent {\it Proof: \ }}

102: \def\endproof{\hfill$\square$\medskip}

103: 

104: 

105: \title{Theta Bodies for Polynomial Ideals} \author{Jo{\~a}o Gouveia}

106: \address{Department of Mathematics, University of Washington, Box

107:   354350, Seattle, WA 98195, USA, and CMUC, Department of Mathematics,

108:   University of Coimbra, 3001-454 Coimbra, Portugal}

109: \email{jgouveia@math.washington.edu} \author{Pablo A. Parrilo}

110: \address{Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science,

111:   Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems, Massachusetts

112:   Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA

113:   02139-4307, USA} \email{parrilo@mit.edu} \author{Rekha R. Thomas}

114: \address{Department of Mathematics, University of Washington, Box

115:   354350, Seattle, WA 98195, USA} \email{thomas@math.washington.edu}

116: \thanks{All authors were partially supported by the NSF Focused

117:   Research Group grant (DMS-0757371, DMS-0757207). Gouveia was also

118:   supported by Funda{\c c}{\~ a}o para a Ci{\^ e}ncia e Tecnologia,

119:   and Thomas by the Robert R. and Elaine K. Phelps Endowed

120:   Professorship.}  \date{\today}

121: 

122: \begin{document}

123: 

124: \begin{abstract}

125:   Inspired by a question of Lov{\'a}sz, we introduce a hierarchy of

126:   nested semidefinite relaxations of the convex hull of real solutions

127:   to an arbitrary polynomial ideal, called theta bodies of the ideal.

128:   These relaxations generalize Lov{\'a}sz's construction of the theta

129:   body of a graph. 

130: % We prove that theta bodies are, up to closure, a

131: % modified version of Lasserre's relaxations for real solutions to

132: % ideals, and that they can be computed explicitly using combinatorial

133: % moment matrices. 

134:   We establish a relationship between theta bodies and Lasserre's

135:   relaxations for real varieties which allows, in many cases, for

136:   theta bodies to be expressed as feasible regions of semidefinite

137:   programs.  Examples from combinatorial optimization are given.

138:   Lov{\'a}sz asked to characterize ideals for which the first theta

139:   body equals the closure of the convex hull of its real variety. We

140:   answer this question for vanishing ideals of finite point sets via

141:   several equivalent characterizations. We also give a geometric

142:   description of the first theta body for all ideals.

143: \end{abstract}

144: \maketitle

145: 

146: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

147: \section{Introduction}

148: 

149: A central concern in optimization is to understand $\conv(S)$, the

150: convex hull of the set of feasible solutions $S$, to a given problem.

151: In many instances, the set of feasible solutions to an optimization

152: problem is the set of real solutions to a polynomial system: $f_1(\xx)

153: = f_2(\xx) = \cdots = f_m(\xx) = 0$, where $f_1, \ldots, f_m \in

154: \RR[\xx] := \RR[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$. This set is the {\em real variety},

155: $\V_\RR(I)$, of the {\em ideal} $I$ in $\RR[\xx]$ generated by $f_1,

156: \ldots, f_m$, and it is often necessary to compute or represent

157: $\conv(\V_\RR(I))$ exactly or at least approximately. 

158: 

159: Recall that $\cl(\conv(\V_\RR(I)))$, the closure of

160: $\conv(\V_\RR(I))$, is cut out by the inequalities $f(\xx) \geq 0$ as

161: $f$ runs over all linear polynomials that are non-negative on

162: $\V_{\RR}(I)$.  (Call $f \in \RR[\xx]$ a {\em linear} polynomial if it

163: is affine linear of the form $f=a_0 + \sum_{i=1}^{n} a_i x_i$.) A

164: classical certificate for the non-negativity of a polynomial $f$ on

165: $\V_\RR(I)$ is the existence of a {\em sum of squares} ({\em sos})

166: polynomial $\sum_{j=1}^{t} h_j^2$ that is congruent to $f$ mod $I$

167: (i.e., $f-\sum_{j=1}^{t} h_j^2 \in I$), written as $f \equiv

168: \sum_{j=1}^{t} h_j^2$ mod $I$. If this is the case, we say that $f$

169: {\em is sos mod} $I$.  Hence a natural relaxation of

170: $\cl(\conv(\V_\RR(I)))$ is the closed convex set:

171: \begin{equation} \label{eqn:sos relaxation} \{ \xx \in \RR^n \,:\,

172:   f(\xx) \geq 0 \,\,\forall\,\,f \textup{ linear and sos mod } I \}.

173: \end{equation}

174: Depending on $I$, (\ref{eqn:sos relaxation}) may be strictly larger

175: than $\cl(\conv(\V_\RR(I)))$ since there may be polynomials that are

176: non-negative on $\V_\RR(I)$ but not sos mod $I$. However, in many

177: interesting cases, (\ref{eqn:sos relaxation}) will equal

178: $\cl(\conv(\V_\RR(I)))$. By bounding the degree of the $h_j$'s that

179: appear in the sos representations, and gradually increasing this

180: bound, we obtain a hierarchy of relaxations to

181: $\cl(\conv(\V_\RR(I)))$. In \cite{Lovasz}, Lov{\'a}sz asked a question

182: that leads to the study of this hierarchy. To explain it, we first

183: introduce some definitions.

184: 

185: \begin{definition} \label{def:perfect ideals} Let $f$ be a polynomial

186:   in $\RR[\xx]$, $I$ be an ideal in $\RR[\xx]$ with real variety

187:   $\V_{\RR}(I) := \{\ss \in \RR^n \,:\, f(\ss) = 0 \,\,\forall \,\,f

188:   \in I \}$, and let $\RR[\xx]_k$ denote the set of polynomials in

189:   $\RR[\xx]$ of degree at most $k$.

190: \begin{enumerate}

191: \item The polynomial $f$ is {\bf $k$-sos}

192:   mod $I$ if there exists $h_1,\ldots,h_t \in \RR[\xx]_k$ for some $t$

193:   such that $f \equiv \sum_{j=1}^t h_j^2 \,\,\textup{mod}\,\,I$.

194:   

195: \item The ideal $I$ is {\bf $k$-sos} if {\em every} polynomial that is

196:   non-negative on $\V_\RR(I)$ is $k$-sos mod $I$. If every polynomial

197:   of degree at most $d$ that is non-negative on $\V_{\RR}(I)$ is $k$-sos mod

198:   $I$, we say that $I$ is {\bf $(d,k)$-sos}.

199: \end{enumerate}

200: \end{definition}

201: 

202: \begin{example} \label{ex:runningex} Consider the principal ideal $I =

203:   \langle x_1^2x_2 - 1 \rangle \subset \RR[x_1,x_2]$. Then

204:   $\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I)) = \{ (s_1,s_2) \in \RR^2 \,:\, s_2 > 0

205:   \}$, and any linear polynomial that is non-negative over

206:   $\V_{\RR}(I)$ is of the form $\alpha x_2 + \beta$, where $\alpha,

207:   \beta \geq 0$. Since $\alpha x_2 + \beta \equiv (\sqrt{\alpha}

208:   x_1x_2)^2 + (\sqrt{\beta})^2$ mod $I$, $I$ is $(1,2)$-sos. Check

209:   that $x_2$ is not $1$-sos mod $I$ and so, $I$ is not $(1,1)$-sos.

210: \end{example}

211: 

212: In \cite{Lovasz}, Lov{\'a}sz asked the following question.

213: 

214: \begin{problem} \cite[Problem 8.3]{Lovasz} \label{prob:lovasz} Which

215:   ideals in $\RR[\xx]$ are $(1,1)$-sos? How about

216:   $(1,k)$-sos?

217: \end{problem}

218: 

219: The geometry behind the above algebraic question leads to a natural

220: hierarchy of relaxations of $\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I))$ which we now

221: introduce. The name comes from earlier work of Lov{\'a}sz and will be

222: explained in Section~\ref{sec:examples}.

223: 

224: \begin{definition} \label{def:theta} 

225: \begin{enumerate}

226: \item For a positive integer $k$, the $k$-th {\bf theta body} of an

227:   ideal $I \subseteq \RR[\xx]$ is

228: $$\textup{TH}_k(I) := \{ \xx \in \RR^n \,:\,

229:   f(\xx) \geq 0 \,\,\textup{for every linear}

230:   \,\,f\,\,\textup{that is $k$-sos mod} \,\,I \}.$$

231: \item An ideal $I \subseteq \RR[\xx]$ is {\bf $\textup{TH}_k$-exact}

232:   if $\textup{TH}_k(I)$ equals $\cl(\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I)))$.

233: \item The {\bf theta-rank} of $I$ is the smallest $k$ for which $I$ is 

234:   $\textup{TH}_k$-exact.

235: \end{enumerate}

236: \end{definition}

237: 

238: 

239: By definition, $\textup{TH}_1(I) \supseteq \textup{TH}_2(I) \supseteq

240: \cdots \supseteq \textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I))$. As seen in

241: Example~\ref{ex:runningex}, $\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I))$ may not be

242: closed while the theta bodies are. Therefore, the theta-body sequence

243: of $I$ can converge, if at all, only to

244: $\textup{cl}(\conv(\V_\RR(I)))$. 

245: % If an ideal $I$ is $\textup{TH}_k$-exact, then linear optimization

246: % over $\V_\RR(I)$ reduces to linear optimization over

247: % $\textup{TH}_k(I)$ which, as we will see in Section~\ref{sec:theta

248: %   bodies}, can be represented using {\em semidefinite

249: %   programming}. Therefore,

250: 

251: A natural question at this point is whether

252: the algebraic notion of an ideal being $(1,k)$-sos is equivalent to

253: the geometric notion of being $\textup{TH}_k$-exact.

254: 

255: \begin{lemma} \label{lem:1ksos implies thetakexact} If an ideal $I

256:   \subseteq \RR[\xx]$ is $(1,k)$-sos then it is $\textup{TH}_k$-exact.

257: \end{lemma}

258: 

259: \begin{proof}

260:   Let $I$ be $(1,k)$-sos and $\ss \in \RR^n$ be not in

261:   $\textrm{cl}(\conv(\V_{\RR}(I)))$. By the {\em separation theorem}

262:   \cite[Theorem III.1.3]{Barvinok} there exists a linear polynomial

263:   $f$, non-negative over $\textrm{cl}(\conv(\V_{\RR}(I)))$, such that

264:   $f(\ss)<0$. However, since $I$ is $(1,k)$-sos, $f$ is $k$-sos mod

265:   $I$ and so $\ss \not \in \textrm{TH}_k(I)$. Hence $\textup{TH}_k(I)

266:   \subseteq \textrm{cl}(\conv(\V_{\RR}(I)))$ and so,

267:   $\textup{TH}_k(I)$ equals $\textrm{cl}(\conv(\V_{\RR}(I)))$.

268: %   If $I$ is $(1,k)$-sos then any linear $f$

269: %   non-negative on $\V_\RR(I)$ (hence on

270: %   $\textup{cl}(\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I)))$) is $k$-sos mod $I$

271: %   which implies that $\textup{TH}_k(I) \subseteq

272: %   \textup{cl}(\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I)))$. The reverse

273: %   inclusion is always true, and so

274: %   $\textup{cl}(\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I))) = \textup{TH}_k(I)$.

275: \end{proof}

276: 

277: Interestingly, the converse of Lemma~\ref{lem:1ksos implies

278:   thetakexact} is false in general.

279: 

280: \begin{example} \label{ex:conversefalse} Consider $I = \langle x^2

281:   \rangle \subset \RR[x]$ with $\V_{\RR}(I) = \{0\} \subset \RR$. All

282:   linear polynomials that are non-negative on $\V_\RR(I)$ are of the

283:   form $\pm a^2 x + b^2$ for some $a,b \in \RR$. If $b \neq 0$, then

284:   $(\pm a^2 x + b^2) \equiv (\frac{a^2}{2b} x \pm b)^2$ mod

285:   $I$. However, $\pm x$ is not a sum of squares mod $I$, and hence $I$

286:   is not $(1,k)$-sos for any $k$. On the other hand, $I$ is

287:   $\textup{TH}_1$-exact since $\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I)) = \{0\}$ is

288:   cut out by the infinitely many linear inequalities $\pm x + b^2 \geq

289:   0$ as $b$ varies over $b \neq 0$.

290: \end{example}

291: 

292: 

293: \begin{definition} \label{def:ideal defs} 

294:   Let $I$ be an ideal in $\RR[\xx]$.   Then $I$ is

295: \begin{enumerate}

296: \item {\bf radical} if it equals its {\bf radical ideal}

297:   $$\sqrt{I} := \{ f \in \RR[\xx] \,:\, f^m \in I, \,\,m \in \NN

298:   \backslash \{0\} \},$$

299: \item {\bf real radical} if it equals its {\bf real radical ideal}

300:   $$\sqrt[\RR]{I} := \{ f \in \RR[\xx] \,:\, f^{2m} + g_1^2 + \cdots +

301:   g_t^2 \in I, \,\, m \in \NN \backslash \{0\}, \,\, g_1, \ldots,

302:   g_t \in \RR[\xx] \},$$

303: \item and {\bf zero-dimensional} if its {\bf complex variety}

304: $\V_{\CC}(I) := \{\xx \in \CC^n \,:\, f(\xx) = 0 \,\,\forall \,\, f

305: \in I \}$ is finite. 

306: \end{enumerate}

307: \end{definition}

308: 

309: Recall that given a set $S \subseteq \RR^n$, its {\em vanishing ideal}

310: in $\RR[\xx]$ is the ideal $\I(S) := \{ f \in \RR[\xx] \,:\, f(\ss)=0

311: \,\,\forall\,\, \ss \in S \}$.  {\em Hilbert's Nullstellensatz} states

312: that for an ideal $I \subseteq \RR[\xx]$, $\sqrt{I} = \I(\V_{\CC}(I))$

313: and the {\em Real Nullstellensatz} states that $\sqrt[\RR]{I} =

314: \I(\V_{\RR}(I))$.  Hence, $I \subseteq \sqrt{I} \subseteq

315: \sqrt[\RR]{I}$, and if $I$ is real radical then it is also

316: radical. See for example, \cite[Appendix 2]{MarshallBook}, for these

317: notions.

318: 

319: We will prove in Section~\ref{sec:theta bodies} that the converse of

320: Lemma~\ref{lem:1ksos implies thetakexact} holds for real radical

321: ideals. These ideals occur frequently in applications and for them,

322: Problem~\ref{prob:lovasz} is asking when $I$ is $\textup{TH}_1$-exact,

323: or more generally, $\textup{TH}_k$-exact.

324: 

325: \vspace{.2cm}

326: 

327: \noindent{\bf Contents of this paper.}

328: Recall that a {\em semidefinite program}

329: (SDP) is an optimization problem in the space of real symmetric

330: matrices of the form:

331: \begin{equation} \label{sdp}

332: \max \,\,\left\{ \cc^t \xx \,:\, A_0 + \sum_{i=0}^m A_i x_i

333:   \succeq 0 \right \},

334: \end{equation}

335: where $\cc \in \RR^m$ and the $A_j$'s are real symmetric matrices. The

336: notation $A \succeq 0$ implies that $A$ is {\em positive

337:   semidefinite}. SDPs generalize linear programs and can be solved

338: efficiently \cite{BoydVandenberghe}.  In Section~\ref{sec:theta

339:   bodies} we prove that under a certain technical hypothesis

340: (satisfied by real radical ideals for instance), the theta body

341: sequence of an ideal $I$ is a modified version of a hierarchy of

342: relaxations for the convex hull of a basic semialgebraic set, due to

343: Lasserre \cite{Lasserre1, Lasserre2}.  In this case, each theta body

344: is the closure of the projection of a {\em spectrahedron} (feasible

345: region of a SDP), and an explicit representation is possible using the

346: {\em combinatorial moment matrices} introduced by Laurent

347: \cite{Laurent}. When $I$ is a real radical ideal, we further prove

348: that $I$ is $(1,k)$-sos if and only if $I$ is $\textup{TH}_k$-exact

349: which impacts later sections.

350: 

351: In Section~\ref{sec:examples} we illustrate the theta body sequence

352: for the maximum stable set and maximum cut problems in a graph which

353: are two very well-studied problems from combinatorial

354: optimization. The stable set problem motivated

355: Problem~\ref{prob:lovasz}. We explain this connection in detail in

356: Section~\ref{sec:examples}.

357: 

358: In Section~\ref{sec:structure} we solve Problem~\ref{prob:lovasz} for

359: vanishing ideals of finite point sets in $\RR^n$. This situation

360: arises often in applications and is the typical set up in

361: combinatorial optimization. Several corollaries follow: If $S \subset

362: \RR^n$ is finite and its vanishing ideal $\I(S)$ is $(1,1)$-sos then

363: $S$ is affinely equivalent to a subset of $\{0,1\}^n$ and its convex

364: hull can have at most $2^n$ facets. If $S$ is the vertex set of a

365: down-closed $0/1$-polytope in $\RR^n$, then $\I(S)$ is $(1,1)$-sos if

366: and only if $\textup{conv}(S)$ is the stable set polytope of a perfect

367: graph. Families of finite sets in growing dimension with $(1,1)$-sos

368: vanishing ideals are exhibited.

369: 

370: In Section~\ref{sec:structure arbitrary S}, we give an intrinsic

371: description of the first theta body, $\textup{TH}_1(I)$, of an

372: arbitrary polynomial ideal $I$ in terms of the convex quadrics in $I$.

373: This leads to non-trivial examples of $\textup{TH}_1$-exact ideals

374: with arbitrarily high-dimensional real varieties and reveals the

375: algebraic-geometric structure of $\textup{TH}_1(I)$. Analogous

376: descriptions for higher theta bodies remain open.

377: 

378: \begin{remark} In \cite{Lasserre3}, Lasserre introduced the {\em

379:     Schm{\"u}dgen Bounded Degree Representation} (S-BDR) and the {\em

380:     Putinar-Prestel Bounded Degree Representation} (PP-BDR) properties

381:   of a compact basic semialgebraic set $K = \{\xx \,:\, g_1(\xx) \geq

382:   0,\ldots,g_m(\xx) \geq 0\}$ (where $g_i \in \RR[\xx]$),

383:   defined as follows:

384: \begin{itemize}

385: \item $K$ has the S-BDR property if there exists a positive integer

386:   $k$ such that {\em almost all} linear $f$ that are positive over $K$

387:   has a representation as $f = \sum_{J \subseteq [m]} \sigma_J g_J$

388:   where $\sigma_J$ are sos, $g_J := \prod_{j \in J} g_j$ and the

389:   degree of $\sigma_J g_J$ is at most $2k$ for all $J \subseteq [m] :=

390:   \{1,\ldots,m\}$.

391: \item $K$ has the PP-BDR property if there exists a positive integer

392:   $k$ such that {\em almost all} linear $f$ that are positive over $K$

393:   has a representation as $f = \sum_{j=0}^{m} \sigma_j g_j$ where

394:   $\sigma_j$ are sos, $g_0 := 1$ and the degree of $\sigma_j g_j$ is

395:   at most $2k$ for $j=0,\ldots,m$.

396: \end{itemize}

397: Call the smallest such $k$ the S-BDR (respectively, PP-BDR) rank of

398: $K$. Here ``almost all'' means all except a set of Lebesgue measure

399: zero.  Note that the PP-BDR property implies that S-BDR property.

400: 

401: For an ideal $I=\left< f_1,\ldots,f_m \right> \subset \RR[\xx]$,

402: $V_\RR(I)$ is the, possibly non-compact, basic semialgebraic set

403: $\{\xx \in \RR^n \,:\, \pm f_1(\xx) \geq 0, \ldots, \pm f_m(\xx) \geq

404: 0 \}$.  When $\V_\RR(I)$ is compact, its PP-BDR property is closely

405: related to the $(1,k)$-sos and $\textup{TH}_k$-exact properties of

406: $I$. However, these notions are not exactly comparable since the

407: PP-BDR rank of $\V_\RR(I)$ depends on the choice of generators of $I$,

408: and only the linear polynomials that are positive (as opposed to

409: non-negative) over $\V_\RR(I)$. Regardless, note that if $\V_{\RR}(I)$

410: has PP-BDR rank $k$, then $I$ has theta-rank at most $k$.

411: \end{remark}

412: 

413: {{\bf Acknowledgments}. We thank Monique Laurent and Ting Kei Pong for

414:   several useful inputs to this paper. We also thank the referees for

415:   their many constructive comments that helped the organization of the

416:   paper.}

417: 

418: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

419: \section{Theta Bodies} \label{sec:theta bodies}

420: 

421: In Definition~\ref{def:theta} we introduced the $k$-th theta body of a

422: polynomial ideal $I \subseteq \RR[\xx]$ and observed that these bodies

423: create a nested sequence of closed convex relaxations of

424: $\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I))$ with $\textup{TH}_k(I) \supseteq

425: \textup{TH}_{k+1}(I) \supseteq \textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I))$.  Lasserre

426: \cite{Lasserre1} and Parrilo \cite{Parrilo:phd,Parrilo:spr} have

427: independently introduced hierarchies of semidefinite relaxations for

428: polynomial optimization over basic semialgebraic sets in $\RR^n$ using

429: results from real algebraic geometry and the theory of moments. We

430: first examine the connection between the theta bodies of an ideal $I$

431: and Lasserre's relaxations for $\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I))$.

432: % We adopt the point of view in

433: % \cite{MarshallBook} of Lasserre's method to prove our results.

434: % Proposition~\ref{prop:kperfect} shows that if $I$ is real radical then

435: % being $(1,k)$-sos is equivalent to being $\textup{TH}_k$-exact.

436: 

437: % Using results in the literature we point out several situations in

438: % which the theta body sequence of an ideal $I$ is guaranteed to

439: % converge to $\textup{cl}(\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I)))$. We also show

440: % how theta bodies can be handled computationally, by directly computing

441: % SOS decompositions in the quotient ring $\RR[\xx]/I$

442: % \cite{SOSstructbook}, or dually, by using the combinatorial moment

443: % matrices from \cite{Laurent}.

444: 

445: \subsection{Lasserre's hierarchy and theta bodies}

446: 

447: \begin{definition}

448:   Let $I$ be an ideal in

449:   $\RR[\xx]$. The {\bf quadratic module} of $I$ is

450:   $$\mathcal{M}(I):=\left\{s + I \,:\, s

451:     \textrm{ is sos in} \,\,\RR[\xx] \right \}.$$

452:   The {\bf $k$-th truncation} of $\mathcal{M}(I)$ is

453:   $$\mathcal{M}_{k}(I):=\left\{s + I \,:\, s

454:     \textrm{ is } k\textrm{-sos} \right\}.$$

455:  \end{definition}

456:  

457:  Both $\mathcal{M}(I)$ and $\mathcal{M}_{k}(I)$ are cones in the

458:  $\RR$-vector space $\RR[\xx]/I$. Let $(\RR[\xx]/I)'$ denote the set

459:  of linear functionals on $\RR[\xx]/I$ and $\pi_I$ be the projection map

460:  from $(\RR[\xx]/I)'$ to $\RR^n$ defined as

461:  $\pi_I(y)=(y(x_1+I),\ldots,y(x_n+I)).$ Also let

462:  $\mathcal{M}_{k}(I)^{*} \subseteq (\RR[\xx]/I)'$ denote the {\em

463:    dual cone} to $\mathcal{M}_{k}(I)$, the set of all linear functions

464:  on $\RR[\xx]/I$ that are non-negative on $\mathcal{M}_{k}(I)$.

465:  

466: \begin{definition}

467:   For $y \in (\RR[\xx]/I)'$, let $H_y$ be the symmetric bilinear

468:   form

469:   $$

470:   \begin{array}{rccc}

471:     H_y : & \RR[\xx]/I \times \RR[\xx]/I & \longrightarrow & \RR\\

472:     & (f+I,g+I) & \longmapsto & y(fg+I)

473:  \end{array}

474:  $$

475:  and $H_{y,t}$ be the restriction of $H_y$ to the subspace

476:  $\RR[\xx]_{t}/I$.

477: \end{definition}

478: 

479: Recall that a symmetric bilinear form $H:V \times V \rightarrow \RR$,

480: where $V$ is a $\RR$-vector space, is positive semidefinite

481: (written as $H \succeq 0$) if $H(v,v) \geq 0$ for all non-zero

482: elements $v \in V$.  Given a basis $B$ of $V$, the matrix indexed by

483: the elements of $B$ with $(b_i,b_j)$-entry equal to $H(b_i,b_j)$ is

484: called the {\em matrix representation} of $H$ in the basis $B$. The

485: form $H$ is positive semidefinite if and only if its matrix

486: representation in any basis is positive semidefinite.

487: 

488: \begin{lemma} \label{thm:sdpformulation} Let $I \subseteq \RR[\xx]$ be

489:   an ideal and $k$ a positive integer. Then

490:   $$\mathcal{M}_{k}(I)^{*}=\{y \in (\RR[\xx]/I)' :  H_{y,k} \succeq 0\}.$$

491: \end{lemma}

492: \begin{proof}

493:   Note that $y \in \mathcal{M}_{k}(I)^{*}$ if and only if $y(s + I)

494:   \geq 0$ for all $k$-sos polynomials $s$. By linearity of $y$ this is

495:   equivalent to $y(h^2 + I) \geq 0$ for all $h \in \RR[\xx]_k$ which

496:   is the definition of $H_{y,k}$ being positive semidefinite.

497: \end{proof}

498: 

499: The original Lasserre relaxations in \cite{Lasserre1} approximate

500: $\conv(S)$ for a basic semialgebraic set $S=\{\xx \in \RR^n \,:\,

501: g_i(\xx) \geq 0,\, i=1,\ldots,m\}$ by the sets

502: $$\left \{ (y(x_1),\ldots,y(x_n)) \,:\, y \in \RR[\xx]', \,\, y(1) = 1, \,\,

503:   y\left(\sum_{i=0}^{m} s_ig_i \right ) \geq 0 \right \}$$ where $s_i$

504: are sos, $g_0 := 1$ and the degree of $s_ig_i$ is bounded above by

505: some fixed positive integer. When there are equations among the

506: $g_i(\xx) \geq 0$, both Lasserre \cite{Lasserre2} (for $0/1$ point

507: sets) and Laurent \cite{Laurent} (more generally for finite varieties)

508: propose doing computations mod the ideal generated by the polynomials

509: defining the equations, to increase efficiency. We adopt this point of

510: view since in our case, $S = \V_\RR(I)$, is cut out entirely by

511: equations, and work with the following definition of a Lasserre

512: relaxation.

513: 

514: \begin{definition} \label{def:lasserre relaxation} Let $I \subseteq

515:   \RR[\xx]$ be an ideal, $k$ be a positive integer, and

516:   $\mathcal{Y}_1$ be the hyperplane of all functions $y \in

517:   (\RR[\xx]/I)'$ such that $y(1+I)=1$.  The {\bf $k$-th modified

518:     Lasserre relaxation} $Q_{k}(I)$ of $\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I))$ is

519:   $$Q_{k}(I):=\pi_I(\mathcal{M}_{k}(I)^* \cap \mathcal{Y}_1).$$

520: \end{definition}

521: 

522: While $\mathcal{M}_{k}(I)^* \cap \mathcal{Y}_1$ is always closed,

523: $Q_k(I)$ might not be (see Example~\ref{ex:runningex2}). We first note

524: that $Q_k(I)$ is indeed a relaxation of $\conv(\V_\RR(I))$.

525: 

526: \begin{lemma} \label{lem:QkI contains conv}

527: For an ideal $I$ and a positive integer $k$,

528: $\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I)) \subseteq Q_k(I)$. 

529: \end{lemma}

530: 

531: \begin{proof}

532:   For $\ss \in \V_{\RR}(I)$, consider $y^{\ss} \in (\RR[\xx]/I)'$

533:   defined as $y^{\ss}(f+I) := f(\ss)$.  Then $y^{\ss} \in

534:   \mathcal{M}_{k}(I)^*$ and $y^{\ss}(1+I) = 1$. Therefore,

535:   $\pi_I(y^{\ss})=\ss \in Q_{k}(I)$, and $\conv(\V_{\RR}(I)) \subseteq

536:   Q_{k}(I)$ since $Q_{k}(I)$ is convex.

537: \end{proof}

538: 

539: Since $Q_{k+1}(I) \subseteq Q_{k}(I)$, these bodies create a nested

540: sequence of relaxations of $\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I)))$ as

541: intended. Our main goal in this section is to establish a relationship

542: between $Q_k(I)$ and the $k$-th theta body, $\textup{TH}_k(I)$, of the

543: ideal $I$ (cf. Definition \ref{def:theta}). We start by noting the

544: following inclusion.

545: 

546: \begin{proposition} \label{prop:basis free formulation} For an ideal

547:   $I \subseteq \RR[\xx]$ and a positive integer $k$,

548:   $\textup{cl}(Q_{k}(I)) \subseteq \textup{TH}_k(I)$.

549: \end{proposition}

550: \begin{proof}

551:   Since $\textup{TH}_k(I)$ is closed, it is enough to show that

552:   $Q_{k}(I) \subseteq \textup{TH}_k(I)$. Pick $\pp \in Q_{k}(I)$ and

553:   $y \in \mathcal{M}_{k}(I)^* \cap \mathcal{Y}_1 $ such that

554:   $\pi_I(y)=\pp$. Let $f = a_0 + \sum_{i=1}^{n} a_i x_i$ and $f+I \in

555:   \mathcal{M}_{k}(I)$. Then, $\pp \in \textup{TH}_k(I)$ since 

556:   $$f(\pp) = f(\pi_I(y))= a_0 y(1+I)+ \sum_{i=1}^{n} a_i y(x_i + I) =

557:   y(f+I) \geq 0.$$

558: \end{proof}

559: 

560: Theorem~\ref{thm:basis free formulation} will prove that if ${\mathcal

561:   M}_k(I)$ is closed, we have the equality $\textup{cl}(Q_{k}(I)) =

562: \textup{TH}_k(I)$.

563: 

564: \begin{lemma} \label{lem:new lemma} Let $I \subseteq \RR[\xx]$ be an

565:   ideal and $k$ be a positive integer. If $f \in \RR[\xx]_1$ is

566:   non-negative over $Q_k(I)$, then $f+I \in \textup{cl}({\mathcal

567:     M}_k(I))$.

568: \end{lemma} 

569: 

570: \begin{proof} Suppose $f \in \RR[\xx]_1$ is non-negative over $Q_k(I)$

571:   and $f+I \not \in \textup{cl}({\mathcal M}_k(I))$. Then by the

572:   separation theorem, there exists $y \in {\mathcal M}_k(I)^*$ such

573:   that $y(f+I) < 0$. Since $(f+r+I)^2 = (f+r)^2+I$ lies in ${\mathcal

574:     M}_k(I)$ for any real number $r$, $y \in {\mathcal M}_k(I)^*$ and

575:   $y$ is linear, we get

576: $$0 \leq y((f+r+I)^2) = y(f^2+I) + 2ry(f+I) + r^2y(1+I)$$

577: which implies that $y(1+I) > 0$ since $y(f+I) \neq 0$. Scaling $y$

578: such that $y(1+I) = 1$, we have that $y \in {\mathcal M}_k(I)^* \cap

579: {\mathcal Y}_1$. This implies that $\pi_I(y) \in Q_k(I)$ and

580: therefore, by hypothesis, $f(\pi_I(y)) \geq 0$. However, since $f \in

581: \RR[\xx]_1$ and $y$ is linear, we also get $f(\pi_I(y)) = y(f+I) < 0$

582: which is a contradiction.

583: \end{proof}

584: 

585: \begin{theorem} \label{thm:basis free formulation} Let $I \subseteq

586:   \RR[\xx]$ be an ideal. For a positive integer $k$, if ${\mathcal

587:     M}_k(I)$ is closed, then $\textup{cl}(Q_{k}(I)) =

588:   \textup{TH}_k(I)$.

589: \end{theorem}

590: 

591: \begin{proof}

592:   By Proposition~\ref{prop:basis free formulation}, we need to prove

593:   that when ${\mathcal M}_k(I)$ is closed, $\textup{TH}_k(I) \subseteq

594:   \textup{cl}(Q_{k}(I))$.  Suppose $\pp \not \in

595:   \textup{cl}(Q_{k}(I))$. By the separation theorem, there exists $f

596:   \in \RR[\xx]_1$ non-negative on $\textup{cl}(Q_{k}(I))$ with $f(\pp)

597:   < 0$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:new lemma}, $f+I \in {\mathcal M}_k(I)$

598:   since ${\mathcal M}_k(I)$ is closed by assumption and hence $f$ is

599:   $k$-sos mod $I$. Since $f(\pp) < 0$, $\pp \not \in

600:   \textup{TH}_k(I)$.

601: \end{proof}

602: 

603: 

604: An important class of ideals for which ${\mathcal M}_k(I)$ is closed

605: is the set of real radical ideals which are the focus of

606: Sections~\ref{sec:examples} and ~\ref{sec:structure}. We now derive

607: various corollaries to Theorem~\ref{thm:basis free formulation} that

608: apply to real radical ideals.

609: 

610: \begin{corollary} \label{cor:equality for real radical ideals} If $I

611:   \subseteq \RR[\xx]$ is a real radical ideal then

612:   $\textup{cl}(Q_{k}(I)) = \textup{TH}_k(I)$.

613: \end{corollary}

614: 

615: \begin{proof}

616: By \cite[Prop 2.6]{PowSchei}, if $I$ is real radical, then ${\mathcal

617:   M}_k(I)$ is closed.

618: \end{proof}

619: 

620: \begin{lemma} \label{lem:borweinlewis} Let $V$ and $W$ be finite

621:   dimensional vector spaces, $H \subseteq W$ be a cone and $A \,:\, V

622:   \rightarrow W$ be a linear map such that $A(V) \cap \textup{int}(H)

623:   \neq \emptyset$. Then $(A^{-1}H)^* = A'(H^*)$ where $A'$ is the dual

624:   operator to $A$.  In particular, $A'(H^*)$ is closed in $V'$.

625: \end{lemma}

626: 

627: \begin{proof}

628: This follows from Corollary~3.3.13 in \cite{BorweinLewis} by

629: setting $K = V$.

630: \end{proof}

631: 

632: \begin{corollary}\label{cor:theta-lasserre}

633:   Let $I$ be a real radical ideal in $\RR[\xx]$ and $k$ be a positive

634:   integer.  If there exists $g \in \RR[\xx]_1$ such that $g+I$ is in

635:   the interior of $\mathcal{M}_{k}(I)$ (considered as a subset of

636:   $\RR[\xx]_{2k}/I$), then $\textup{TH}_{k}(I)=Q_{k}(I)$.

637: \end{corollary}

638: 

639: \begin{proof}  

640: By Corollary~\ref{cor:equality for real radical ideals}, it suffices

641: to show that $Q_k(I)$ is closed. Consider $\RR^{n+1}$ with coordinates

642: indexed $0,1,\ldots,n$ and the map

643: $$\tilde{\pi}_I \,:\, (\RR[\xx]/I)' \rightarrow \RR^{n+1}

644: \,\,\textup{such that} \,\,y \mapsto (y(1+I),\pi_I(y)).$$ Then

645: $\tilde{\pi}_I({\mathcal M}_k(I)^* \cap {\mathcal Y}_1) = \{(1,\pp)

646: \,:\, \pp \in Q_k(I) \}$ and so, $Q_k(I)$ will be closed if

647: $\tilde{\pi}_I({\mathcal M}_k(I)^* \cap {\mathcal Y}_1) =

648: \tilde{\pi}_I({\mathcal M}_k(I)^*) \cap \{\pp \in \RR^{n+1} \,:\, p_0

649: = 1 \}$ is closed.  Hence, it suffices to show that

650: $\tilde{\pi}_I({\mathcal M}_k(I)^*) \subseteq \RR^{n+1}$ is closed.

651: 

652: Now consider the inclusion map $A \,:\, \RR[\xx]_1/I \rightarrow

653: \RR[\xx]_{2k}/I$ and let $M$ denote the cone ${\mathcal M}_k(I)$

654: considered as a subset of $\RR[\xx]_{2k}/I$.  By assumption,

655: $A(\RR[\xx]_1/I) \cap \textup{int}(M) = (\RR[\xx]_1/I) \cap

656: \textup{int}(M) \neq \emptyset$ and so by

657: Lemma~\ref{lem:borweinlewis}, $A'(M^*)$ is closed.  Let $C :=

658: \{1^*,x_1^*,\ldots,x_n^*\}$ be the canonical basis of

659: $(\RR[\xx]_1/I)'$. Then $A'(\bar{y}) = ({\bar y}(1+I),{\bar

660:   y}(x_1+I), \ldots, {\bar y}(x_n+I))$ with respect to $C$. Now note

661: that if $y \in {\mathcal M}_k(I)^*$ then its restriction ${\hat y}$ to

662: $\RR[\xx]_{2k}/I$ belongs to $M^*$ and $A'({\hat y}) =

663: \tilde{\pi}_I(y)$. Therefore, $\tilde{\pi}_I({\mathcal M}_k(I)^*)

664: \subseteq A'(M^*)$. Conversely, if ${\bar y} \in M^*$ and ${\tilde

665:   y}$ is any extension to $\RR[\xx]/I$, then ${\tilde y}$ belongs to

666: ${\mathcal M}_k(I)^*$. Since $A'({\bar y}) =

667: \tilde{\pi}_I(\tilde{y})$ we get $A'(M^*) \subseteq

668: \tilde{\pi}_I({\mathcal M}_k(I)^*)$ and so, $A'(M^*) =

669: \tilde{\pi}_I({\mathcal M}_k(I)^*)$ is closed.

670: \end{proof}

671: 

672: % If such a $g$ exists then the closure in

673: % \eqref{eq:closure} can be dropped \cite[Corollary

674: % 16.4.2]{Rockafellar}. Then we just have to observe that

675: % $(\mathcal{M}_{k}(I)^{*} + R_1^{\perp}) \cap \mathcal{Y}_1 $ is the

676: % same as $\mathcal{M}_{k}(I)^{*} \cap \mathcal{Y}_1 + R_1^{\perp}$

677: % and the argument used in the proof of the Theorem \ref{thm:basis

678: %   free formulation} will yield the intended result.

679: 

680: Let $I$ be an ideal and $k$ a positive integer. In

681: Lemma~\ref{lem:1ksos implies thetakexact} we saw that if $I$ is

682: $(1,k)$-sos (i.e., every linear polynomial that is non-negative on

683: $\V_{\RR}(I)$ is $k$-sos mod $I$), then $I$ is $\textup{TH}_k$-exact

684: (i.e., $\textup{TH}_k(I) =

685: \textup{cl}(\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I)))$). Example~\ref{ex:conversefalse}

686: showed that the reverse implication does not always hold.  

687: 

688: \begin{corollary} \label{cor:real radical equivalence} If an ideal $I

689:   \subseteq \RR[\xx]$ is real radical then $I$ is $(1,k)$-sos if and

690:   only if $I$ is $\textup{TH}_k$-exact.

691: \end{corollary}

692: 

693: \begin{proof} 

694:   If $f \in \RR[\xx]_1$ is non-negative on $\V_\RR(I)$ and $I$ is

695:   $\textup{TH}_k$-exact, then $f$ is non-negative on

696:   $\textup{TH}_k(I)$ and hence on $Q_k(I)$. Therefore, by

697:   Lemma~\ref{lem:new lemma}, $f \in \textup{cl}({\mathcal M}_k(I))$.

698:   Suppose now that $I$ is also real radical. Then ${\mathcal M}_k(I)$

699:   is closed and $f+I \in {\mathcal M}_k(I)$, which means that $I$ is

700:   $(1,k)$-sos.

701: \end{proof}

702: 

703: % \begin{proposition} \label{prop:kperfect} If an ideal $I \subset

704: %   \RR[\xx]$ is $\textup{TH}_k$-exact for some positive integer $k$,

705: %   and $f \in \RR[\xx]_1$ is non-negative on $\V_{\RR}(I)$, then $f+I

706: % \in \textup{cl}(\mathcal{M}_{k}(I))$.

707: % \end{proposition}

708: 

709: % \begin{proof}

710: %   Let $f \in \RR[\xx]_1$ be non-negative on $\V_{\RR}(I)$ and suppose

711: %   $f+I \not \in \textup{cl}(\mathcal{M}_{k}(I))$. By the separation

712: %   theorem, there exists $y \in \mathcal{M}_{k}(I)^*$ such that

713: %   $y(f+I)<0$. Given any real number $r$ we then have

714: % $$0 \leq y((f+r+I)^2) = y(f^2+I)+2ry(f+I)+r^2y(1+I).$$

715: % Since $y(f+I)<0$, we must have $y(1+I)>0$. Now scaling $y$ so that

716: % $y(1+I)=1$, we get $0 > y(f+I) = f(\pi_I(y))$ since $f$ is

717: % linear. However, since $y \in \mathcal{M}_{k}(I)^* \cap

718: % \mathcal{Y}_1$, we have $\pi_I(y) \in \textup{TH}_k(I) =

719: % \textup{cl}({\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I))})$, which implies by

720: % hypothesis that $f(\pi_I(y)) \geq 0$. This contradiction implies that

721: % $f+I$ belongs to $\textup{cl}(\mathcal{M}_k(I))$.

722: % \end{proof}

723: 

724: 

725: % Pick $\pp \in \textup{TH}_k(I)$ (i.e., $f(\pp) \geq 0$ for all

726: % linear $f$ such that $f+I \in \mathcal{M}_{k}(I)$). Choose a basis

727: % $f_1,f_2,\ldots$ of the $\RR$-vector space $I$ such that

728: % $f_1,\ldots,f_t$ is a basis for $I \cap \RR[\xx]_1$. Complete it to

729: % a basis of $\RR[\xx]$ by adding polynomials $h_1,h_2,\ldots$ such

730: % that $f_1,\ldots,f_t,h_1,\ldots,h_s$ is a basis for $\RR[\xx]_1$. We

731: % can then define a linear function $y'$ in $\RR[\xx]'$ by setting

732: %   $$y'\left(\sum_j \alpha_j f_j + \sum_i \beta_i h_i)

733: %   \right) := \sum_{i=1}^s \beta_i h_i(\pp).$$ Since $y'(I)=\{0\}$ by

734: %   definition, we can descend $y'$ to a linear operator $y \in

735: %   (\RR[\xx]/I)'$ by simply setting $y(f+I)=y'(f)$ for all $f \in

736: %   \RR[\xx]$.  For $i=1,\ldots,t$, since $f_i+I=-f_i+I = I \subseteq

737: %   \mathcal{M}_{k}(I)$, and $f_i$ is linear, we must have $f_i(\pp)=0$.

738: %   This implies that for any other linear polynomial $g$ (which equals

739: %   $\sum_{j=1}^t \alpha_{j} f_j + \sum_{i=1}^s \beta_{i} h_i$ for some

740: %   constants $\alpha_j$, $\beta_i$), $g(\pp) = \sum_{i=1}^s \beta_{i}

741: %   h_i(\pp) = y(g+I)$.  In particular, $\pi_I(y) = \pp$, $y(1+I) = 1$,

742: %   and if $g$ is linear with $g+I \in \mathcal{M}_{k}(I)$, then $y(g+I)

743: %   = g(\pp) \geq 0$.  If $R_1:=\RR[\xx]_1 +I$, then what we have so far

744: %   is that $y \in \left( R_1 \cap \mathcal{M}_{k}(I)\right)^{*} \cap

745: %   \mathcal{Y}_1 $ and $\pi_I(y) = \pp$.  To finish the proof, we will

746: %   show that $\pi_I(y)$ belongs to the closure of $Q_k(I)$. Let

747: %   $R_1^{\perp} \subset (\RR[\xx]/I)'$ be the orthogonal complement of

748: %   $R_1$. Note that $\left( R_1 \cap \mathcal{M}_{k}(I)\right)^{*} =

749: %   \textup{cl}(\mathcal{M}_{k}(I)^{*} + R_1^{\perp})$ where the closure

750: %   is taken in the weak$^*$ topology of $(\RR[\xx]/I)'$. This happens

751: %   because both $R_1$ and ${M}_{k}(I)$ are closed, and the dual of the

752: %   intersection of two closed cones is the closure of the sum of the

753: %   dual cones \cite[Cor.2, p.126]{Schaefer}.  Hence,

754: %  \begin{equation}\label{eq:closure}

755: %    y \in  \textup{cl}(\mathcal{M}_{k}(I)^{*} +

756: %    R_1^{\perp})  \cap \mathcal{Y}_1.  

757: %  \end{equation}

758: %  Then $y=\lim_{\lambda} (y_{\lambda} + z_{\lambda})$ for some nets

759: %  $y_{\lambda} \in \mathcal{M}_{k}(I)^{*}$ and $z_{\lambda} \in

760: %  R_1^{\perp}$. Since $z_{\lambda}(1+I) = 0$ for all $\lambda$, we must

761: %  have $\lim_\lambda y_{\lambda}(1+I)=y(1+I)=1$ and so

762: % $$y=\lim_{\lambda}  \frac{y_{\lambda}}{y_{\lambda}(1+I)} + z_{\lambda}

763: % \in \textup{cl}(\mathcal{M}_{k}(I)^{*}\cap \mathcal{Y}_1 +

764: % R_1^{\perp}).$$ 

765: % This means that the projection $\pi_I(y)$ must be in the set  

766: % $$\pi_I(\textup{cl}(\mathcal{M}_{k}(I)^{*}\cap \mathcal{Y}_1 +

767: % R_1^{\perp})) \subseteq \textup{cl}(\pi_I(\mathcal{M}_{k}(I)^{*}\cap

768: % \mathcal{Y}_1 + R_1^{\perp})),$$ and because $R_1^{\perp}$ lies in the

769: % kernel of $\pi_I$, we conclude that $\pi_I(y)$ lies in

770: %   $$\textup{cl}(\pi_I( \mathcal{M}_{k}(I)^{*} \cap \mathcal{Y}_1)) =

771: %   \textup{cl}(Q_{k}(I)).$$ 

772: 

773: 

774: We close with a brief discussion of ideals for which the theta body

775: sequence is guaranteed to converge (finitely or asymptotically) to

776: $\textup{cl}(\conv(\V_{\RR}(I)))$.

777: 

778: \begin{enumerate}

779: \item If $\V_{\RR}(I)$ is finite the results in \cite{LaLauRos} imply

780:   that $I$ is $\textup{TH}_k$-exact for some finite $k$. If

781:   $\V_\CC(I)$ is finite ($I$ is zero-dimensional), then $k$ can be

782:   bounded above by the maximum degree of a linear basis of

783:   $\RR[\xx]/I$ \cite{Laurent} (see Section~\ref{subsec:combinatorial

784:     matrices}).  However, as in $I = \langle x^2 \rangle$, we cannot

785:   guarantee that $I$ is $(1,k)$-sos for any $k$, even when $I$ is

786:   zero-dimensional.  If $I$ is zero-dimensional and radical, then in

787:   fact, $I$ is $(1,k)$-sos for finite $k$ with $k \leq

788:   |\V_{\CC}(I)|-1$ (see \cite{parrilo}, \cite[Theorem

789:   2.4]{LaurentSosSurvey}). Better bounds are often possible as in

790:   Remark~\ref{rem:k parallel translates}. For an ideal $I \subseteq

791:   \RR[\xx]$ we summarize the above results in the following table.

792: 

793: % \begin{center}

794: % \begin{tikzpicture}

795: % \matrix(m)[matrix of math nodes, row sep=3em col sep=3em, text

796: % height=1.5ex, text depth=0.25ex]

797: % {A&B\\C&D\\};

798: % \path[->,font=scriptsize];

799: % (m-1-1) edge (m-1-2)

800: % (m-1-1) edge (m-2-1)

801: % (m-1-2) edge (m-2-2)

802: % (m-2-1) edge (m-2-2);

803: % \end{tikzpicture}

804: % \end{center}

805: 

806: 

807: \begin{center}

808: $

809: \xymatrix{

810: \V_\CC(I) \,\,\text{finite}  \ar[r] \ar[d]^{\tiny{I = \sqrt{I}}}  & \V_\RR(I) \,\,\text{finite} \ar[d] \\

811: I \,\,\, \text{(1,k)-sos}  \ar@<-1mm>[r]  &  I\,\,\,\textup{TH}_k\textup{-exact}   \ar@<-1mm>[l]_{\tiny{I=\sqrt[\RR]{I}}}

812: }

813: $

814: \end{center}

815: 

816: 

817: \item If $\V_{\RR}(I)$ is not finite but is compact, Schm{\"u}dgen's

818:   Positivstellensatz \cite[Chapter 3]{MarshallBook} implies that the

819:   theta body sequence of $I$ converges (at least asymptotically) to

820:   $\textup{cl}(\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I)))$ (i.e.,

821:   $\bigcap_{k=1}^{\infty} \textup{TH}_k(I) =

822:   \textup{cl}(\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I)))$).  

823:   % Under strong additional

824: %   requirements on smoothness and curvature, results of Helton and Nie

825: %   \cite{helton-nie} guarantee that $I$ is $\textup{TH}_k$-exact for

826: %   finite $k$.

827:   

828: \item If $\V_{\RR}(I)$ is not compact, then the study of the theta

829:   body hierarchy becomes harder.  Scheiderer \cite[Chapter

830:   2]{MarshallBook} has identified ideals $I$ with $\V_{\RR}(I)$ not

831:   necessarily compact, but of dimension at most two, for which every

832:   $f \geq 0$ mod $I$ is sos mod $I$. In all these cases, the theta

833:   body sequence of $I$ converges to

834:   $\textup{cl}(\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I)))$.

835:   \end{enumerate}

836: 

837: 

838:   The results of Schm{\"u}dgen and Scheiderer mentioned above fit

839:   within a general framework in real algebraic geometry that is

840:   concerned with when an arbitrary $f \in \RR[\xx]$ that is positive

841:   or non-negative over a basic semi-algebraic set is sos modulo

842:   certain algebraic objects defined by the set. We only care about

843:   real varieties and whether linear polynomials that are non-negative

844:   over them are sos mod their ideals. Therefore, often there are

845:   ideals $I$ that are $\textup{TH}_k$-exact or $(1,k)$-sos for which

846:   there are non-linear polynomials $f$ such that $f \geq 0$ mod $I$

847:   but $f$ is not sos mod $I$. For instance, the proof of

848:   Theorem~\ref{thm:intersection} will show that $J_n := \langle

849:   \sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i^2 -1 \rangle$ is $(1,1)$-sos for all $n$, but a

850:   result of Scheiderer \cite[Theorem 2.6.3]{MarshallBook} implies that

851:   when $n \geq 4$, there is always some non-linear $f$ non-negative on

852:   $\V_\RR(J_n)$ that is not sos mod $J_n$.

853: 

854: 

855: \subsection{Combinatorial moment matrices} \label{subsec:combinatorial

856:   matrices}

857: 

858: To compute theta bodies we must work with the truncated quadratic

859: module $\mathcal{M}_{k}(I)$ which requires computing sums of squares

860: in $\RR[\xx]/I$ as described in \cite{SOSstructbook}, or dually, using

861: the combinatorial moment matrices introduced by Laurent in

862: \cite{Laurent}.  We describe the latter viewpoint here as it is more

863: natural for theta bodies. 

864: 

865: Consider a basis $\B = \{ f_0+I, f_1+I, \ldots \}$ for $\RR[\xx]/I$,

866: and define $\textup{deg}(f_i + I) := \textup{min}_{f-f_i \in I}

867: \textup{deg}\,f$.  For a positive integer $k$, let $\B_k := \{ f_l + I

868: \in \B \,:\, \textup{deg}(f_l+I) \leq k \}$, and set $\ff_k := (f_l+I

869: \,:\, f_l+I \in \B_k)$. We may assume that the elements of $\B$ are

870: indexed in order of increasing degree.  Let $\lambda^{(g+I)} :=

871: (\lambda_l^{(g+I)})$ be the vector of coordinates of $g+I$ with

872: respect to $\B$. Note that $\lambda^{(g+I)}$ has only finitely many

873: non-zero coordinates.

874: 

875: \begin{definition}

876:   Let $\yy \in \RR^{\mathcal{B}}$. Then the {\bf combinatorial moment

877:     matrix} $M_{\mathcal{B}}(\yy)$ is the (possibly infinite) matrix

878:   indexed by $\mathcal{B}$ whose $(i,j)$ entry is

879:   $$\lambda^{(f_i f_j +I)} \cdot \yy = \sum \lambda_l^{(f_if_j+I)}

880:   y_l.$$

881:   The {\bf $k$-th-truncated combinatorial moment matrix}

882:   $M_{\B_k}(\yy)$ is the finite (upper left principal) submatrix of

883:   $M_{\B}(\yy)$ indexed by $\B_k$.

884: \end{definition}

885: 

886: Although only a finite number of the components in

887: $\lambda^{(f_if_j+I)}$ are non-zero, for practical purposes we need to

888: control exactly which indices can be non-zero.  One way to do this is

889: by choosing $\B$ such that if $f+I$ has degree $k$ then $f+I \in

890: \textup{span}(\B_k)$. This is true for instance if $\B$ is the set of

891: {\em standard monomials} of a {\em term order} that respects degree

892: \cite{CLO}. If $\B$ has this property then $M_{\B_k}(\yy)$ only

893: depends on the entries of $\yy$ indexed by $\B_{2k}$. 

894: 

895: \begin{theorem}\label{thm:combinatorial matrices formulation}

896:   For each positive integer $k$, 

897:   $$\textup{proj}_{\RR^{\B_1}}\{ \yy \in \RR^{\B_{2k}} \,:\,

898:   M_{\B_k}(\yy) \succeq 0, \, y_0 = 1\} = \ff_1 (Q_{k}(I)),$$ where

899:   $y_0$ is the first entry of $\yy \in \RR^{B_{2k}}$,

900:   $\textup{proj}_{\RR^{\B_1}}$ is the projection onto the coordinates

901:   indexed by $\B_1$, and for $\pp \in \RR^n$, $\ff_1(\pp) :=

902:   (f_i(\pp))_{f_i+I \in \B_1}$.

903: \end{theorem}

904: \begin{proof}

905:   We may identify $\yy =(y_i) \in \RR^{\B_{2k}}$ with the operator

906:   $\bar{y} \in (\RR[\xx]/I)'$ where $\bar{y}(f_i+I)=y_i$ if $f_i+I

907:   \in \B_{2k}$ and zero otherwise. Then $M_{\B_k}(\yy)$ is simply the

908:   matrix representation of $H_{\bar{y},k}$ in the basis $\B$, since

909:   we assumed that if $\deg \,(f_i+I), \deg \,(f_j

910:   + I) \leq k$ then $\bar{y}(f_if_j+I)$ depends only on the value of

911:   $\bar{y}$ on $\B_{2k}$. Therefore, $\textup{proj}_{\RR^{\B_1}}\{ \yy

912:   \in \RR^{\B_{2k}} \,:\, M_{\B_k}(\yy) \succeq 0\}$

913:   equals $$\{(\bar{y}(f_i+I))_{\B_1} : \bar{y} \in (\RR[\xx]/I)',

914:   H_{\bar{y},k} \succeq 0\}.$$ 

915:   Furthermore, since $f_i$ is linear whenever $f_i+I \in \B_1$,

916:   $$(\bar{y}(f_i+I))_{\B_1}= (f_i(\pi_I(\bar{y})))_{\B_1} =:

917:   \ff_1(\pi_I(\bar{y}))$$ so by Lemma~\ref{thm:sdpformulation},

918:   $\textup{proj}_{\RR^{\B_1}}\{ \yy \in \RR^{\B_{2k}} \,:\,

919:   M_{\B_k}(\yy) \succeq 0, \, y_0 = 1\} = \ff_1 (Q_{k}(I)$.

920: \end{proof}

921: 

922: \begin{corollary} \label{cor:simple version} Suppose $\B_1 = \{1+I,

923:   x_1+I, \ldots, x_n+I\}$ and denote by $y_0,y_1, \ldots, y_n$ the

924:   first $n+1$ coordinates of $\yy \in \RR^{\B_{2k}}$, then $$Q_{k}(I)

925:   = \{ (y_1, \ldots, y_n) \,:\, \yy \in

926:   \RR^{\B_{2k}}\,\textup{with}\,\, M_{\B_k}(\yy) \succeq 0

927:   \,\textup{and} \, y_0 = 1\}.$$

928: \end{corollary}

929: 

930: By Corollary \ref{cor:simple version}, optimizing a linear function

931: over $Q_k(I)$, hence over $\textup{cl}(Q_k(I))$, is

932: an SDP and can be solved efficiently.

933: 

934: \begin{example} \label{ex:runningex2} Consider the ideal $I = \langle

935:   x_1^2x_2 - 1 \rangle \subset \RR[x_1,x_2]$ from

936:   Example~\ref{ex:runningex} for which $\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I)) =

937:   \{(s_1,s_2) \in \RR^2 \,:\, s_2 > 0 \}$ was not closed but $I$ was

938:   $\textup{TH}_2$-exact and $(1,2)$-sos. Note that $\B = \bigcup_{k

939:     \in \NN} \{x_1^k+I, x_2^k+I, x_1x_2^k+I\}$ is a degree-compatible

940:   monomial basis for $\RR[x_1,x_2]/I$ for which $$\B_4 =

941:   \{1,x_1,x_2,x_1^2,x_1x_2,x_2^2,x_1x_2^2,x_1^3,x_2^3,x_1x_2^3,x_1^4,x_2^4

942:   \}+I.$$ The combinatorial moment matrix $M_{\B_2}(\yy)$ for

943:   $\yy=(1,y_1,\ldots, y_{11}) \in \RR^{\B_4}$ is

944:   $$ \begin{array}{ll}

945:      & \hspace*{.2cm} \begin{array}{cccccc} 1 & \, x_1 & x_2 &

946:      x_1^2 & x_1x_2 & \hspace*{-.1cm} x_2^2 

947:      \end{array} \\ 

948: \vspace*{-.2cm}

949: & \\ 

950: \begin{array}{c}

951:     1 \\ x_1 \\ x_2 \\ x_1^2 \\ x_1x_2 \\ x_2^2 

952:      \end{array} & \hspace*{-.2cm}

953: \left( \begin{array}{cccccc}

954: 1 & y_1 & y_2 & y_3 & y_4 & y_5 \\

955: y_1 & y_3 & y_4 & y_6 & 1 & y_7 \\

956: y_2 & y_4 & y_5 & 1 & y_7 & y_8 \\

957: y_3 & y_6 & 1 & y_9 & y_1 & y_2 \\

958: y_4 & 1 & y_7 & y_1 & y_2 & y_{10}\\

959: y_5 & y_7 & y_8 & y_2 & y_{10} & y_{11}

960: \end{array} \right)

961: \end{array}

962: $$

963: If $M_{\B_2}(\yy) \succeq 0$, then the principal minor indexed by

964: $x_1$ and $x_1x_2$ implies that $y_2y_3 \geq 1$ and so in particular,

965: $y_2 \neq 0$ for all $\yy \in Q_{2}(I)$. However, since $Q_{2}(I)

966: \supseteq \textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I)) = \{(s_1,s_2) \in \RR^2 \,:\, s_2

967: > 0 \}$, it must be that $Q_{2}(I) = \textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I))$ which

968: shows that $Q_{2}(I)$ is not closed.

969: \end{example}

970: 

971: \begin{remark}\label{rem:running example}

972:   Example \ref{ex:runningex2} can be modified to show that $Q_k(I)$

973:   may not be closed even if $\V_{\RR}(I)$ is finite. To see this,

974:   choose sufficiently many pairs of points $(\pm t,1/t^2)$ on the

975:   curve $x_1^2x_2=1$ to form a set $S$ such that the ideal $\I(S)$ has a

976:   monomial basis $\B'$ in which $\B'_4$ equals the $\B_4$ from

977:   above. For instance, $S = \{(\pm t, 1/t^2) \,:\, t=1,\ldots,7 \}$

978:   will work. Then $Q_{2}(\I(S))$ coincides with $Q_{2}(I)$ computed

979:   above and so is not a closed set.

980: \end{remark}

981: 

982: 

983: We now show that in the particular case of vanishing ideals of $0/1$

984: points, which are real radical ideals, the closure in

985: Theorem~\ref{thm:basis free formulation} ($\textup{TH}_k(I) =

986: \textup{cl}(Q_k(I))$) is not needed. Most ideals that occur in

987: combinatorial optimization have this form and we will see important

988: examples in Section~\ref{sec:examples}. Remark \ref{rem:running

989:   example} shows that the closure cannot be removed for arbitrary

990: finite point sets.

991: 

992: \begin{proposition} \label{prop:theta=Q} If $S$ is a set of $0/1$

993:   points in $\RR^n$ and $I=\I(S)$ then for all positive integers $k$,

994:   $\textup{TH}_k(I)=Q_{k}(I)$.

995: \end{proposition}

996: 

997: \begin{proof}

998:   By Corollary~\ref{cor:theta-lasserre} it is enough to show that

999:   there is a linear polynomial $g \in \RR[\xx]$ such that $g \equiv

1000:   \ff_k^t A \ff_k$ mod $I$ for a {\em positive definite} matrix $A$

1001:   and some basis of $\RR[\xx]/I$ with respect to which $\ff_k$ was

1002:   determined.  Let $\B$ be a monomial basis for $\RR[\xx]/I$ and

1003:   $\B_k=\{1,p_1,\ldots,p_l\}+I$. Let $\cc \in \RR^{l}$ be the vector

1004:   with all entries equal to $-2$, and $D \in \RR^{l \times l}$ be the

1005:   diagonal matrix with all diagonal entries equal to $4$. Since $x_i^2

1006:   \equiv x_i$ mod $I$ for $i=1,\ldots,n$ and $\B$ is a monomial basis,

1007:   for any $f+I \in \B$, $f \equiv f^2$ mod $I$. Therefore, the

1008:   constant

1009: $$l+1 \equiv \ff_k^t

1010: \left[

1011: \begin{array} {cc}

1012: l+1 & \cc^t \\

1013: \cc & D

1014: \end{array}

1015: \right]\ff_k \,\,\textup{mod} \,\,I,$$ and it is enough to prove that

1016: the square matrix on the right is positive definite. This follows from

1017: the fact that $D$ is positive definite and its {\em Schur

1018:   complement} $(l+1) - \cc^t D^{-1} \cc = 1$ is positive

1019: (\cite[Theorem 7.7.6]{HornJohnson}).

1020: \end{proof}

1021: 

1022: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1023: \section{Combinatorial Examples} \label{sec:examples}

1024: 

1025: An important area of application for the theta body hierarchy

1026: constructed in Section~\ref{sec:theta bodies} is {\em combinatorial

1027:   optimization} which is typically concerned with optimizing a linear

1028: function over a finite set of integer points. In this section, we

1029: compute theta bodies for two important problems in combinatorial

1030: optimization -- the {\em maximum stable set problem} and the {\em

1031:   maximum cut problem} in a graph.  We explain the observations about

1032: the stable set problem which motivated Lov{\'a}sz to pose

1033: Problem~\ref{prob:lovasz}. The cut problem is modeled in two different

1034: ways. The first is a non-standard approach which is described

1035: fully. For the second, more standard model of the cut problem, theta

1036: bodies provide a new hierarchy of semidefinite relaxations for the

1037: {\em cut polytope} that is studied in detail in \cite{GLPT}. We

1038: outline those results briefly here.  A recent trend in theoretical

1039: computer science has been to study the computational complexity of

1040: approximating problems in combinatorial optimization via the standard

1041: hierarchies of convex relaxations to these problems such as those in

1042: \cite{LovaszSchrijver91} and \cite{Lasserre1, Lasserre2}. Our theta

1043: body approach provides a new mechanism to establish such complexity

1044: results.

1045: 

1046: \subsection{The Maximum Stable Set Problem}\label{subsec:stable sets}

1047: Let $G=([n],E)$ be an undirected graph with vertex set

1048: $[n]=\{1,\ldots,n\}$ and edge set $E$. A {\em stable set} in $G$ is a

1049: set $U \subseteq [n]$ such that for all $i,j \in U$, $\{i,j\} \not \in

1050: E$. The maximum stable set problem seeks the stable set of largest

1051: cardinality in $G$, the size of which is the {\em stability number} of

1052: $G$, denoted as $\alpha(G)$. 

1053: 

1054: The maximum stable set problem can be modeled as follows. For each

1055: stable set $U \subseteq [n]$, let $\chi^U \in \{0,1\}^n$ be its {\em

1056:   characteristic vector} defined as $(\chi^U)_i = 1$ if $i \in U$ and

1057: $(\chi^U)_i = 0$ otherwise.  Let $S_G \subseteq \{0,1\}^n$ be the set

1058: of characteristic vectors of all stable sets in $G$. Then

1059: $\textup{STAB}(G) := \conv(S_G)$ is called the {\em stable set

1060:   polytope} of $G$ and the maximum stable set problem is, in theory,

1061: the linear program $\textup{max}\{ \sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i \,:\, \xx \in

1062: \textup{STAB}(G) \}$ with optimal value $\alpha(G)$. However,

1063: $\textup{STAB}(G)$ is not known apriori, and so one resorts to

1064: relaxations of it over which one can optimize $\sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i$.

1065: 

1066: In \cite{ShannonCapacity}, Lov{\'a}sz introduced, $\textup{TH}(G)$, a

1067: convex relaxation of $\textup{STAB}(G)$, called the {\em theta body}

1068: of $G$. The problem $\textup{max}\{ \sum_{i=1}^{n} x_i \,:\, \xx \in

1069: \textup{TH}(G) \}$ is a SDP which can be solved to arbitrary precision

1070: in polynomial time in the size of $G$. The optimal value of this SDP

1071: is called the {\em theta number} of $G$ and provides an upper

1072: bound on $\alpha(G)$. See \cite[Chapter 9]{GLS} and

1073: \cite{BruceShepherd} for more on the stable set problem and

1074: $\textup{TH}(G)$.  The body $\textup{TH}(G)$ was the first example of

1075: a SDP relaxation of a discrete optimization problem and snowballed the

1076: use of SDP in combinatorial optimization. See \cite{LaurentRendl,

1077:   Lovasz} for surveys. Recall that a graph $G$ is {\em perfect} if and

1078: only if $G$ has no induced odd cycles of length at least five or their

1079: complements. Lov{\'a}sz showed that $\textup{STAB}(G) =

1080: \textup{TH}(G)$ if and only if $G$ is perfect. This equality shows

1081: that the maximum stable set problem can be solved in polynomial time

1082: in the size of $G$ when $G$ is a perfect graph, and this geometric

1083: proof is the only one known for this complexity result.

1084: 

1085: The theta body $\textup{TH}(G)$ has many definitions (see

1086: \cite[Chapter 9]{GLS}) but the one relevant for this paper was

1087: observed by Lov{\'a}sz and appears without proof in

1088: \cite{LovaszStablesetsPolynomials}. Let $I_G := \langle x_j^2 - x_j

1089: \,\,\forall\,\,j \in [n], \,\,\, x_ix_j \,\, \forall \,\, \{i,j\} \in

1090: E \rangle \subseteq \RR[\xx]$. Then check that $\V_{\RR}(I_G) = S_G$

1091: and that $I_G$ is both zero-dimensional and real radical.  Lov{\'a}sz

1092: observed that

1093: \begin{equation} \label{lovasz observation}

1094: \textup{TH}(G) = \{ \xx \in \RR^n \,:\, f(\xx) \geq 0  \,\,\forall

1095:  \,\,\textup{ linear } \,\,f\,\,\textup{that is $1$-sos mod} \,\,I_G

1096:  \}.

1097: \end{equation}

1098: By Definition~\ref{def:theta} (1), $\textup{TH}(G)$ is exactly the

1099: first theta body, $\textup{TH}_1(I_G)$, of the ideal $I_G$, and by the

1100: above discussion, $I_G$ is $\textup{TH}_1$-exact (i.e.,

1101: $\textup{TH}_1(I_G) = \textup{STAB}(G)$) if and only if $G$ is

1102: perfect. Lov{\'a}sz observed that, in fact, $I_G$ is $(1,1)$-sos if

1103: and only if $G$ is perfect which motivated Problem~\ref{prob:lovasz}

1104: that asks for a characterizations of all $(1,1)$-sos ideals in

1105: $\RR[\xx]$.  Lov{\'a}sz refers to a $(1,1)$-sos ideal as a {\em

1106:   perfect ideal}. A $(1,1)$-sos ideal $I$ would have the property that

1107: its first and simplest theta body, $\textup{TH}_1(I)$, coincides with

1108: $\textup{cl}(\conv(\V_\RR(I)))$ which is a valuable property for

1109: linear optimization over $\conv(V_\RR(I))$, especially when

1110: $\textup{TH}_1(I)$ is computationally tractable.

1111: 

1112: The theta body hierarchy of the ideal $I_G$ therefore naturally

1113: extends the theta body of $G$ to a family of nested relaxations of

1114: $\textup{STAB}(G)$. Further, the connection between $\textup{TH}(G)$

1115: and sums of squares polynomials motivated Definition~\ref{def:theta}

1116: which extends the construction of $\textup{TH}(G)$ to a hierarchy of

1117: relaxations of $\V_\RR(I)$ for any ideal $I \subseteq \RR[\xx]$. We

1118: now explicity describe the $k$-th theta body of $I_G$ in terms of

1119: combinatorial moment matrices.

1120: 

1121: For $U \subseteq [n]$, let $\xx^U := \prod_{i \in U} x_i$. From the

1122: generators of $I_G$ it is clear that if $f \in \RR[\xx]$, then $f

1123: \equiv g$ mod $I_G$ where $g$ is in the $\RR$-span of the set of

1124: monomials $\{ \xx^U \,:\, U \textup{ is a stable set in } G \}$. Check

1125: that $\B := \{\xx^U + I_G \,:\, U \,\,\textup{stable set in} \,\, G\}$

1126: is a basis of $\RR[\xx]/I_G$ containing $1+I_G, x_1 + I_G, \ldots, x_n

1127: + I_G$. Therefore, by Corollary~\ref{cor:simple version} and

1128: Proposition~\ref{prop:theta=Q} we have

1129: $$\textup{TH}_k(I_G) = \left\{ \yy \in \RR^n \,:\,

1130: \begin{array}{l} 

1131:   \exists \, M \succeq 0, \, M \in \RR^{|\B_k| \times |\B_k|}

1132:   \,\textup{such that} \\ 

1133:   M_{\emptyset \emptyset} = 1,\\

1134:   M_{\emptyset \{i\}} = M_{\{i\} \emptyset} = M_{\{i\} \{i\}} = y_i \\

1135:   M_{U U'} = 0 \,\,\textup{if} \,\,U \cup U' \,\, \textup{is not stable

1136:     in}  \,\, G\\

1137:   M_{U U'} = M_{W W'} \,\,\textup{if} \,\, U \cup U' = W \cup W' 

1138: \end{array}

1139: \right \}.$$ 

1140: In particular,  indexing the one element stable sets by the vertices

1141: of $G$,

1142: $$\textup{TH}_1(I_G) = \left\{ \yy \in \RR^n \,:\,

1143: \begin{array}{l} 

1144: \exists \, M \succeq 0, M \in \RR^{(n+1) \times (n+1)}\,\textup{such that} \\ 

1145: M_{00} = 1,\\

1146: M_{0i} = M_{i0} = M_{ii} =  y_i \,\,\forall\,\,i \in [n]\\

1147: M_{ij} = 0 \,\,\forall \,\, \{i,j\} \in E

1148: \end{array}

1149: \right \}.$$

1150: 

1151: This description of $\textup{TH}_1(I_G)$ coincides with the

1152: semidefinite description of $\textup{TH}(G)$ (see \cite[Lemma

1153: 2.17]{LovaszSchrijver91} for instance) and so, $\textup{TH}(G) =

1154: \textup{TH}_1(I_G)$.  Corollary~\ref{cor:real radical equivalence}

1155: confirms Lov{\'a}sz's observation and adds to his other

1156: characterizations of a perfect graph as follows.

1157: 

1158: \begin{theorem} \cite[Chapter 9]{GLS}  \label{thm:knownforperfectgraphs}

1159:   The following are equivalent for a graph $G$.

1160: \begin{enumerate}

1161: \item $G$ is perfect.

1162: \item $\textup{STAB}(G) = \textup{TH}(G)$. 

1163: \item $\textup{TH}(G)$ is a polytope. 

1164: \item The complement $\overline G$ of $G$ is perfect.

1165: \item $I_G$ is $(1,1)$-sos.

1166: \end{enumerate}

1167: \end{theorem}

1168: 

1169: The usual Lasserre relaxations of the maximum stable set problem are

1170: set up from the following initial linear programming relaxation of

1171: $\textup{STAB}(G)$:

1172: $$\textup{FRAC}(G) := \{ \xx \in \RR^n \,:\, x_i \geq 0 \,\,\forall

1173: \,\,i \in [n], \, 1-x_i-x_j \geq 0 \,\,\forall \,\,\{i,j\} \in E \}.$$

1174: Note that $S_G = \textup{FRAC}(G) \cap \{0,1\}^n$.  The $k$-th

1175: Lasserre relaxation of $\textup{STAB}(G)$ (see \cite{Lasserre2},

1176: \cite{LaurentComparisonpaper}) uses both the ideal $\langle x_i^2-x_i

1177: \,:\, i \in [n] \rangle$ and the inequality system describing

1178: $\textup{FRAC}(G)$, whereas in the theta body formulation,

1179: $\textup{TH}_k(I_G)$, there is only the ideal $I_G$ and no

1180: inequalities.  Despite this difference, \cite[Lemma

1181: 20]{LaurentComparisonpaper} proves that the usual Lasserre hierarchy

1182: is exactly our theta body hierarchy for the stable set problem.  This

1183: interpretation of the Lasserre hierarchy provides new tools to

1184: understand these relaxations such as establishing the validity of

1185: inequalities over them as shown below.

1186: 

1187: Since no monomial in the basis $\B$ of $\RR[\xx]/I_G$ has degree

1188: larger than $\alpha(G)$, for any $G$, $I_G$ is $(1,\alpha(G))$-sos and

1189: $\textup{STAB}(G) = \textup{TH}_{\alpha(G)}(I_G)$. However, for many

1190: non-perfect graphs the theta-rank of $I_G$ can be a lot smaller than

1191: $\alpha(G)$.  For instance if $G$ is a $(2k+1)$-cycle, then $\alpha(G)

1192: = k$ while Proposition~\ref{prop:2sos} below shows that the theta-rank

1193: of $I_G$ is two.

1194: 

1195: 

1196: \begin{theorem} \label{thm:stabg for oddholes} 

1197:   \cite[Corollary 65.12a]{SchrijverB} If $G=([n],E)$ is an odd cycle

1198:   with $n \geq 5$, then $\textup{STAB}(G)$ is determined by the

1199:   following inequalities:

1200:   $$

1201:   x_i \geq 0 \,\,\forall \,\, i \in [n], \,\,\, 1 - \sum_{i \in K}

1202:   x_i \geq 0 \,\,\forall \textup{ cliques } \,\,K \textup{ in } G, 

1203:   \,\,\, \alpha(G) - \sum_{i \in [n]} x_i \geq 0.

1204: $$

1205: \end{theorem}

1206: 

1207: \begin{proposition} \label{prop:2sos}

1208:   If $G$ is an odd cycle with at least five vertices, then $I_G$ is

1209:   $(1,2)$-sos and therefore, $\textup{TH}_2$-exact.

1210: \end{proposition}

1211: 

1212: \begin{proof} 

1213:   Let $n = 2k+1$ and $G$ be an $n$-cycle. Then $I_G = \langle

1214:   x_i^2-x_i, \,\, x_ix_{i+1} \,\,\forall \,\, i \in [n] \rangle$ where

1215:   $x_{n+1} = x_1$.  Therefore, $(1-x_i)^2 \equiv 1-x_i$ and

1216:   $(1-x_i-x_{i+1})^2 \equiv 1 -x_i-x_{i+1} \,\,\textup{mod}\,\,I_G$.

1217:   This implies that, mod $I_G$,

1218: $$p_i^2:=((1-x_1)(1-x_{2i}-x_{2i+1}))^2 \equiv p_i = 1 - x_1

1219: -x_{2i}-x_{2i+1} + x_1x_{2i} + x_1x_{2i+1}.$$

1220: Summing over $i=1,..,k$, we get 

1221: $$\sum_{i=1}^{k} p_i^2 \equiv k - kx_1 -\sum_{i=2}^{2k+1}x_i +

1222: \sum_{i=3}^{2k} x_1x_i \,\,\textup{mod}\,\,I_G$$

1223: since $x_1x_2$ and $x_1x_{2k+1}$ lie in

1224: $I_G$.  Define $g_i := x_1(1-x_{2i+1}-x_{2i+2})$. Then $g_i^2 - g_i

1225: \in I_G$ and mod $I_G$ we get that

1226: $$\sum_{i=1}^{k-1} g_i^2 \equiv (k-1)x_1 - \sum_{i=3}^{2k} x_1x_i,

1227: \,\,\textup{which implies} \,\, \sum_{i=1}^{k} p_i^2 +

1228: \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} g_i^2 \equiv k - \sum_{i=1}^{2k+1}x_i.$$ 

1229: 

1230: To prove that $I_G$ is $(1,2)$-sos it suffices to show that the left

1231: hand sides of the inequalities in the description of

1232: $\textup{STAB}(G)$ in Theorem~\ref{thm:stabg for oddholes} are $2$-sos

1233: mod $I_G$ since by Farkas Lemma \cite{Sch}, all other linear

1234: inequalities that are non-negative over $S_G$ are non-negative real

1235: combinations of a set of inequalities defining $\textup{STAB}(G)$.

1236: Clearly, $x_i \equiv x_i^2 \,\,\textup{mod}\,\,I_G$ for all $i \in

1237: [n]$ and one can check that for each clique $K$, $(1 - \sum_{i \in K}

1238: x_i) \equiv (1 - \sum_{i \in K} x_i)^2 \,\,\textup{mod}\,\,I_G$. The

1239: previous paragraph shows that $k - \sum_{i=1}^{2k+1}x_i$ is also

1240: $2$-sos mod $I_G$.

1241: \end{proof}

1242: 

1243: An induced odd cycle $C_{2k+1}$ in $G$, yields the well-known {\em odd

1244:   cycle inequality} $\sum_{i\in C_{2k+1}} x_i \leq \alpha(C_{2k+1})=k$

1245: that is satisfied by $S_G$ \cite[Chapter

1246: 9]{GLS}. Proposition~\ref{prop:2sos} implies that for any graph $G$,

1247: $\textup{TH}_2(I_G)$ satisfies all odd cycle inequalities from $G$

1248: since every stable set $U$ in $G$ restricts to a stable set in an

1249: induced odd cycle in $G$. This general result can also be proved using

1250: results from \cite{LovaszSchrijver91} and

1251: \cite{LaurentComparisonpaper}. The direct arguments used in the proof

1252: of Proposition~\ref{prop:2sos} are examples of the algebraic {\em

1253:   inference rules} outlined by Lov{\'a}sz in

1254: \cite{LovaszStablesetsPolynomials}. Similarly, one can also show that

1255: other well-known classes of inequalities such as the {\em odd

1256:   antihole} and {\em odd wheel} inequalities \cite[Chapter 9]{GLS} are

1257: also valid for $\textup{TH}_2(I_G)$. Schoenebeck \cite{Schoenebeck}

1258: has recently shown that there is no constant $k$ such that

1259: $\textup{STAB}(G) = \textup{TH}_k(I_G)$ for all graphs $G$ (as

1260: expected, unless P=NP).  However, no explicit family of graphs that

1261: exhibit this behaviour is known.

1262: 

1263: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1264: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1265: 

1266: \subsection{Cuts in graphs} \label{subsec:cuts} Given an undirected

1267: connected graph $G = ([n], E)$ and a partition of its vertex set $[n]$

1268: into two parts $V_1$ and $V_2$, the set of edges $\{i,j\} \in E$ such

1269: that exactly one of $i$ or $j$ is in $V_1$ and the other in $V_2$ is

1270: the {\em cut} in $G$ induced by the partition $(V_1,V_2)$. The cuts in

1271: $G$ are in bijection with the $2^{n-1}$ distinct partitions of $[n]$

1272: into two sets. The maximum cut problem in $G$ seeks the cut in $G$ of

1273: largest cardinality.  This problem is NP-hard and has received a great

1274: deal of attention in the literature. A celebrated result in this area

1275: is an approximation algorithm for the max cut problem, due to Goemans

1276: and Williamson \cite{GoemansWilliamson}, that guarantees a cut of size

1277: at least $0.878$ of the optimal cut. It relies on a simple SDP

1278: relaxation of the problem.

1279: 

1280: We first study a non-standard model of the max cut problem. Let

1281: $$SG := \{ \chi^F \,:\, F \subseteq E\,\,\textup{is contained in a cut

1282:   of} \,\, G \} \subseteq \{0,1\}^E.$$ Then the {\em weighted} max cut

1283: problem with non-negative weights $w_e$ on the edges $e \in E$ is

1284: $\textup{max} \left \{ \sum_{e \in E} w_e x_e \,:\, \xx \in SG \right

1285: \}$, and the vanishing ideal

1286: $$\I(SG) = \langle x_e^2 - x_e \,\,, \xx^T \,:\,

1287: \,\,e \in E, \,\, T \textup{ odd cycle in } G \rangle. $$ A

1288: basis of $\RR[\xx]/{\I(SG)}$ is $$\B = \{ \xx^U + I(SG) \,:\, U

1289: \subseteq E \,\,\textup{does not contain an odd cycle in} \,\, G \}$$

1290: and $1+\I(SG), x_e + \I(SG) \,(\forall \,e \in E)$ lie in

1291: $\B$. Therefore,

1292: $$\textup{TH}_k(\I(SG)) = \left\{ \yy \in \RR^E \,:\,

1293: \begin{array}{l} 

1294: \exists \, M \succeq 0, \, M \in \RR^{|\B_k| \times |\B_k|}

1295:   \,\textup{such that} \\ 

1296: M_{\emptyset \emptyset} = 1,\\

1297: M_{\emptyset \{i\}} = M_{\{i\} \emptyset} = M_{\{i\}\{i\}} = y_i \\

1298: M_{U U'} = 0 \,\,\textup{if} \,\,U \cup U' \,\, \textup{has an odd

1299:   cycle} \\

1300: M_{U U'} = M_{W W'} \,\,\textup{if} \,\, U \cup U' = W \cup W' 

1301: \end{array}

1302: \right \}.$$

1303: 

1304: In particular,

1305: $$\textup{TH}_1(\I(SG)) = \left\{ \yy \in \RR^E \,:\,

1306:  \begin{array}{l} 

1307:  \exists \, M \succeq 0, \, M \in \RR^{(|E|+1) \times (|E|+1)}

1308:    \,\textup{such that} \\ 

1309:  M_{00} = 1,\\

1310:  M_{0 e} = M_{e 0} = M_{e e} =  y_e \,\,\forall \,\, e \in E

1311:  \end{array}

1312: \right \}.$$

1313: 

1314: Note that for any graph $G$, $\textup{TH}_1(\I(SG))$ is the unit cube

1315: in $\RR^{E}$ which may not be equal to $\textup{conv}(SG)$. This

1316: stands in contrast to the case of stable sets for which

1317: $\textup{TH}_1(I_G)$ is a polytope if and only if $\textup{TH}_1(I_G)

1318: = \textup{STAB}(G)$. 

1319: 

1320: \begin{proposition}

1321:   The ideal $\I(SG)$ is $\textup{TH}_1$-exact if and only if $G$ is a

1322:   bipartite graph.

1323: \end{proposition}

1324: 

1325: \begin{proof} This follows immediately from the description of

1326:   $\textup{TH}_1(\I(SG))$ and from the fact that $G$ is bipartite if

1327:   and only if it has no odd cycles.

1328: \end{proof}

1329: 

1330: Since the maximum degree of a monomial in $\B$ is the size of the max

1331: cut in $G$, the theta-rank of $\I(SG)$ is bounded from above by the

1332: size of the max cut in $G$. 

1333: 

1334: \begin{proposition} \label{prop:increasingk} There is no constant $k$

1335:   such that $\I(SG)$ is $\textup{TH}_k$-exact for all graphs $G$.

1336: \end{proposition}

1337: 

1338: \begin{proof}

1339:   Let $G$ be a $(2k+1)$-cycle. Then $\textup{TH}_k(\I(SG)) \neq

1340:   \textup{conv}(SG)$ since the linear constraint imposed by the cycle

1341:   in the definition of $\textup{TH}_k(\I(SG))$ will not appear in

1342:   theta bodies of index $k$ or less. 

1343: \end{proof}

1344: 

1345: % If $G$ is a $(2m+1)$-cycle then in fact,

1346: % $\textup{TH}_1(\I(SG)) = \textup{TH}_2(\I(SG)) = \cdots =

1347: % \textup{TH}_m(\I(SG))$ is the unit cube in $\RR^E$ even though

1348: % $\textup{TH}_m(\I(SG)) \neq \textup{conv}(SG)$. This example shows

1349: % that the $k$-th theta body need not strictly contain the $(k+1)$-th

1350: % body in the theta body hierarchy.

1351: 

1352: The theta bodies of a second, more standard, formulation of the

1353: weighted max cut problem are studied in \cite{GLPT}. In this setup,

1354: each cut $C$ in $G=([n],E)$ is recorded by its {\em cut vector}

1355: $\chi^C \in \{\pm 1\}^{E}$ with $\chi^C_{\{i,j\}} = 1$ if $\{i,j\}

1356: \not \in C$ and $\chi^C_{\{i,j\}} = -1$ if $\{i,j\} \in C$.  Let $E_n$

1357: denote the edge set of the complete graph $K_n$, and $\pi_E$ be the

1358: projection from $\RR^{E_n}$ to $\RR^E$. The {\bf cut polytope} of $G$

1359: is

1360: $$\textup{CUT}(G) := \textup{conv}\{ \chi^C : C \textrm{ is a cut in }

1361: G\} \subseteq \RR^{E} = \pi_E(\textup{CUT}(K_n)),$$

1362: and the weighted

1363: max cut problem, for weights $w_e \in \RR$ ($\forall$ $e \in E$) becomes

1364:  $$

1365:  \max \left\{\frac{1}{2}\sum_{e \in E} w_{e}(1- x_{e}) : \xx \in

1366:    \textup{CUT}(G)\right\}.$$

1367: 

1368: In \cite{GLPT}, the vanishing ideal $IG$ of the cut vectors $\{ \chi^C

1369: \,:\, C \textup{ is a cut in } G \}$ is described and a combinatorial

1370: basis $\B$ for $\RR E/ IG$ is identified. Using these, the $k$-th

1371: theta body, $\textup{TH}_k(IG)$, of $IG$ can be described as:

1372:  $$\left\{ \yy \in \RR^E \,:\,

1373:  \begin{array}{l} 

1374:    \exists \, M \succeq 0, \, M \in \RR^{|\B_k| \times

1375:      |\B_k|}\,\,\textup{such that} \\  

1376:    M_{\emptyset,\emptyset} = 1\\

1377:    M_{F_1,F_2} = M_{F_3,F_4} \,\textup{ if } F_1 \Delta F_2 \Delta F_3

1378:    \Delta F_4 \,\textup{ is a cycle in } G

1379:  \end{array}

1380:  \right \}.$$

1381: % \begin{definition} \label{def:T-join}

1382: %   Let $G=([n],E)$ be an undirected graph, $T \subseteq [n]$ have even

1383: %   cardinality and $F \subseteq E$. Then $F$ is called a {\bf $T$-join}

1384: %   if $T$ is exactly the set of vertices of odd-degree in the subgraph

1385: %   of $G$ induced by $F$.

1386: % \end{definition}

1387: 

1388: % Let $\RR E := \RR[x_e \,:\, e \in E]$ and $IG \subseteq \RR E$ be the

1389: % vanishing ideal of the cut vectors in $G$.  Identify a subgraph $F$ of

1390: % $G$ with its set of edges $E(F) \subseteq E$. For a subgraph $F$ in

1391: % $G$, let $\xx^F$ denote the squarefree monomial

1392: % $$\prod_{e \in E(F)} x_e \in \RR E.$$

1393: 

1394: % \begin{theorem} \cite[Theorem 3.4]{GLPT} \label{thm:basis of RG/IG}

1395: %   The ideal $IG$ is generated by the binomials $x_e^2-1$, $\forall$ $e

1396: %   \in E$ and $1-\xx^D$, $\forall$ chordless circuits $D$ in $G$.  For

1397: %   an even subset $T \subseteq [n]$, let $F_T$ be a $T$-join in $G$ and

1398: %   let $\B := \{ \xx^{F_T} + IG \,:\, T \subseteq [n], \,|T|

1399: %   \,\textup{even} \}$.  Then $\B$ is a basis of $\RR E/IG$.

1400: % \end{theorem}

1401: 

1402: % Set $\B$ as in Theorem~\ref{thm:basis of RG/IG} with the additional

1403: % stipulation that for each $T \subseteq [n]$ of even cardinality, the

1404: % $T$-join $F_T$ chosen to represent a coset in $\B$ is one with

1405: % smallest number of edges among all $T$-joins in $G$. Index a coset

1406: % $\xx^{F}+IG \in \B$ by $F$ and let $F_1 \Delta F_2$ denote the

1407: % symmetric difference of the sets $F_1$ and $F_2$. For each positive

1408: % integer $k$, let $\B_k$ be the elements of $\B$ of degree at most $k$

1409: % which are exactly the cosets in $\B$ given by $T$-joins of size at

1410: % most $k$.  When $G$ is a simple graph (i.e., $G$ has no loops or

1411: % parallel edges) we show in Section~3 of \cite{GLPT} that the 

1412: 

1413: %  and in particular,

1414: 

1415: %  $$\textup{TH}_1(IG) = \left\{ \yy \in \RR^E \,:\,

1416: %  \begin{array}{l} 

1417: %  \exists \, M \succeq 0, \, M  \in \RR^{(|E|+1) \times

1418: %    (|E|+1)}\,\,\textup{such that} \\ 

1419: % M_{\emptyset,\emptyset} = M_{e,e} = 1 \,\,\forall \,\,e \in E \\

1420: % M_{e,f} = M_{\emptyset,g} \,\,\textup{ if } \,\,\{e,f,g\} \,\,\textup{

1421: %   is a triangle in } \,\,G, \\ 

1422: % M_{e,f} = M_{g,h} \,\, \textup{ if }\,\,\{e,f,g,h\} \,\,\textup{ is a

1423: %   circuit in }\,\,G

1424: %  \end{array}

1425: %  \right \}.$$

1426: 

1427: % In Section~3.3 of \cite{GLPT} we compare the theta bodies shown above

1428: % to other known relaxations of $\textup{CUT}(G)$ such as those in

1429: % \cite{LaurentMaxCut}. In particular, we show that if $G^*$ is the

1430: % suspension of $G$ from a new vertex then $\pi_E(\textup{TH}_1(IG^*))$

1431: % is contained in the Goemans-Williamson relaxation of

1432: % $\textup{CUT}(G)$. 

1433:  These theta bodies provide a new canonical set of SDP relaxations for

1434:  $\textup{CUT}(G)$ that exploits the structure of $G$ directly. It is

1435:  also shown in \cite{GLPT} that $IG$ is $\textup{TH}_1$-exact if and

1436:  only if $G$ has no $K_5$-minor and no induced cycle of length at

1437:  least five which answers Problem~8.4 posed by Lov{\'a}sz in

1438:  \cite{Lovasz}.

1439: 

1440: \begin{remark} 

1441:   We remark that the stable set problem and the first formulation of

1442:   the max cut problem discussed above are special cases of the

1443:   following general setup.  Let $\Delta$ be an {\em abstract

1444:     simplicial complex} (or {\em independence system}) with vertex set

1445:   $[n]$ recorded as a collection of subsets of $[n]$, called the {\em

1446:     faces} of $\Delta$.  The {\em Stanley-Reisner} ideal of $\Delta$

1447:   is the ideal $J_\Delta$ generated by the squarefree monomials

1448:   $x_{i_1}x_{i_2} \cdots x_{i_k}$ such that $\{i_1, i_2, \ldots, i_k\}

1449:   \subseteq [n]$ is not a face of $\Delta$.  If $I_\Delta := J_\Delta

1450:   + \langle x_i^2 - x_i \,:\, i \in [n] \rangle$, then

1451:   $\V_{\RR}(I_\Delta) = \{ \ss \in \{0,1\}^n \,:\,

1452:   \textup{support}(\ss) \in \Delta \}$.  For $T \subseteq [n]$, recall

1453:   that $\xx^T := \prod_{i \in T} x_i$. Then $\B := \{ \xx^T \,:\, T

1454:   \in \Delta \} + I_{\Delta}$ is a basis for $\RR[\xx]/I_\Delta$

1455:   containing $1+I_\Delta, x_1+I_\Delta, \ldots, x_n+I_\Delta$.

1456:   Therefore, by Corollary~\ref{cor:simple version} and

1457:   Proposition~\ref{prop:theta=Q}, the $k$-th theta body of $I_\Delta$

1458:   is

1459: $$\textup{TH}_k(I_\Delta) = \textup{proj}_{y_1, \ldots, y_n} \{ \yy

1460: \in \RR^{\B_{2k}} \,:\, M_{\B_k}(\yy) \succeq 0, \, y_0 = 1\}.$$

1461: Since

1462: $\B$ is in bijection with the faces of $\Delta$, and $x_i^2 - x_i \in

1463: I_\Delta$ for all $i \in [n]$, the theta body can be written

1464: explicitly as follows:

1465: $$\textup{TH}_k(I_\Delta) = \left\{ \yy \in \RR^n \,:\,

1466: \begin{array}{l} 

1467: \exists \, M \succeq 0, \, M \in \RR^{|\B_k| \times |\B_k|}

1468:   \,\textup{such that} \\ 

1469: M_{\emptyset\emptyset} = 1,\\

1470: M_{\emptyset \{i\}} = M_{\{i\} \emptyset} = M_{\{i\}\{i\}} = y_i \\

1471: M_{UU'} = 0 \,\,\textup{if} \,\,U \cup U' \not \in \Delta\\

1472: M_{UU'} = M_{W W'} \,\,\textup{if} \,\, U \cup U' = W \cup W' 

1473: \end{array}

1474: \right \}.$$

1475: If the dimension of $\Delta$ is $d-1$ (i.e., the largest faces in

1476: $\Delta$ have size $d$), then $I_\Delta$ is $(1,d)$-sos and therefore,

1477: $\textup{TH}_d$-exact since all elements of $\B$ have degree at most

1478: $d$.  However, the theta-rank of $I_\Delta$ could be much less than

1479: $d$.

1480: \end{remark}

1481: 

1482: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1483: 

1484: \section{Vanishing ideals of finite 

1485:  sets of points} \label{sec:structure} 

1486: 

1487: 

1488: Recall that when $S \subset \RR^n$ is finite, its vanishing ideal

1489: $\I(S)$ is zero-dimensional and real radical.

1490: 

1491: \begin{definition} \label{def:exact} We say that a finite set 

1492:   $S \subset \RR^n$ is {\it exact} if its vanishing ideal $\I(S)

1493:   \subseteq \RR[\xx]$ is $\textup{TH}_1$-exact.

1494: \end{definition}

1495: 

1496: We now answer Lov{\'a}sz's question (Problem~\ref{prob:lovasz}) for

1497: vanishing ideals of finite point sets in $\RR^n$.

1498: 

1499: \begin{theorem} \label{thm:perfect}

1500:   For a finite set $S \subset \RR^n$, the following are equivalent.

1501: \begin{enumerate} 

1502: \item $S$ is exact.

1503: \item $\I(S)$ is $(1,1)$-sos.

1504: \item There is a linear inequality description of $\textup{conv}(S)$,

1505:   of the form $g_i(x) \geq 0 \ (i=1,\ldots,m),$ where each $g_i$ is

1506:   $1$-sos mod $\I(S)$.

1507: \item There is a linear inequality description of $\textup{conv}(S)$,

1508:   of the form $g_i(x) \geq 0 \ (i=1,\ldots,m),$ where each $g_i$ is an

1509:   idempotent mod $\I(S)$, i.e., $g_i^2-g_i \in \I(S)$ for

1510:   $i=1,\ldots,m$.

1511: \item There is a linear inequality description of $\textup{conv}(S)$,

1512:   of the form $g_i(x) \geq 0 \ (i=1,\ldots,m),$ where each $g_i$ takes

1513:   at most two different values in $S$, i.e., for each $i$, $S$ is

1514:   contained in the union of the hyperplane $g_i(\xx)=0$ and one unique

1515:   parallel translate of it.

1516: \end{enumerate}

1517: \end{theorem}

1518: 

1519: \begin{proof}

1520:   Since $\I(S)$ is real radical, by Corollary~\ref{cor:real radical

1521:     equivalence}, (1) $\Leftrightarrow$ (2).

1522:   

1523:   The implication (2) $\Rightarrow$ (3) follows from the fact that

1524:   $\textup{conv}(S)$ has a finite linear inequality description, since

1525:   $S$ is finite. The implication (3) $\Rightarrow$ (2) follows from

1526:   Farkas lemma, which implies that any valid inequality on $S$ is a

1527:   non-negative real combination of the linear inequalities $g_i(x)

1528:   \geq 0$.

1529:   

1530:   Suppose (3) holds and $\textup{conv}(S)$ is a full-dimensional

1531:   polytope.  Let $F$ be a facet of $\textup{conv}(S)$, and $g(\xx)\geq

1532:   0$ its defining inequality in the given description of

1533:   $\textup{conv}(S)$.  Then $g(\xx)$ is $1$-sos mod $\I(S)$ if and

1534:   only if there are linear polynomials $h_1,\ldots,h_l \in \RR[\xx]$

1535:   such that $g \equiv h_1^2 + \cdots + h_l^2 \mod \I(S)$. In

1536:   particular, since $g(\xx)=0$ on the vertices of $F$, and all the

1537:   $h_i^2$ are non-negative, each $h_i$ must be zero on all the

1538:   vertices of $F$.  Hence, since the $h_i$'s are linear, they must

1539:   vanish on the affine span of $F$ which is the hyperplane defined by

1540:   $g(\xx)=0$.  Thus each $h_i$ must be a multiple of $g$ and $g \equiv

1541:   \alpha g^2$ mod $\I(S)$ for some $\alpha > 0$. We may assume that

1542:   $\alpha = 1$ by replacing $g(\xx)$ by $g'(\xx) := \alpha g(\xx)$.

1543:   If $\textup{conv}(S)$ is not full-dimensional, then since mod

1544:   $\I(S)$, all linear polynomials can be assumed to define hyperplanes

1545:   whose normal vectors are parallel to the affine span of $S$, the

1546:   proof still holds. Therefore, (3) implies (4). Conversely, since if

1547:   for a linear polynomial $g$, $g \equiv g^2$ mod $\I(S)$, then $g$ is

1548:   $1$-sos mod $\I(S)$, (4) implies (3).

1549:   

1550:   The equivalence (4) $\Leftrightarrow$ (5) follows since $g \equiv

1551:   g^2$ mod $\I(S)$ if and only if $g(\ss)(1 - g(\ss)) = 0 \,\,\forall

1552:   \,\, \ss \in S$.

1553: \end{proof}

1554: 

1555: Recall from the discussion at the end of Section 2.1 that by results

1556: of Parrilo, if $I \subseteq \RR[\xx]$ is a zero-dimensional radical

1557: ideal, then the theta-rank of $I$ is at most $|\V_{\CC}(I)|-1$. Better

1558: upper bounds can be derived using the following extension of Parrilo's

1559: theorem.

1560: 

1561: \begin{remark} \label{rem:k parallel translates} Suppose $S \subseteq

1562:   \RR^n$ is a finite set such that each facet $F$ of

1563:   $\textup{conv}(S)$ has a facet defining inequality $h_F(\xx) \geq 0$

1564:   where $h_F$ takes at most $t+1$ values on $S$, then $\I(S)$ is

1565:   $\textup{TH}_t$-exact: In this case, it is easy to construct a

1566:   degree $t$ intepolator $g$ for the values of $\sqrt{h_F}$ on $S$,

1567:   and we have $h_F \equiv g^2$ mod $\I(S)$. The result then follows

1568:   from Farkas Lemma.

1569: \end{remark}

1570: 

1571: 

1572: %  \begin{proof}

1573: %    Let $H_F$ be defined by the linear equation $\cc_F \cdot \xx =

1574: %    a_0^F$ with $\cc_F \cdot \ss \geq a_0^F$ for all $\ss \in S$.

1575: %    Suppose $S$ is contained in the hyperplanes with equations $c_F

1576: %    \cdot \xx = a_0^F, \, c_F \cdot \xx = a_1^F, \,\ldots,\, c_F \cdot

1577: %    \xx = a_{t_F}^F$ and $t_F \leq t$. For a fixed $\ss \in S$, there

1578: %    exists $s_j \in \{0,\ldots, t_F\}$ such that $\cc_F \cdot s =

1579: %    a_{s_j}^F \geq a_0^F$. For $0 \leq j \leq t_F$, define

1580: %    $$

1581: %    q_{F,j}(\xx) := \frac{\prod_{i \neq j} (\cc_F \cdot \xx -

1582: %      a_i^F)}{\prod_{i \neq j} (a_j^F - a_i^F)} \in \RR[\xx].$$

1583: %    Then

1584: %    $q_{F,j}(\ss) = 0$ if $j \neq s_j$, $q_{F,s_j}(\ss) = 1$, and

1585: %    $q_{F,j}(\xx)$ has degree at most $t$. Suppose $f$ is a linear

1586: %    polynomial such that $f \geq 0 \,\,\textup{mod} \,\,\I(S)$. Then

1587: %    there exists scalars $\lambda_F \geq 0$ for each facet $F$ of

1588: %    $\textup{conv}(S)$ and a linear polynomial $g(\xx) \in \I(S)$ such

1589: %    that $$f(\xx) = \sum_F \lambda_F(\cc_F \cdot \xx - a_0^F)+g(\xx).$$

1590: %    Define $$h(\xx) := f(\xx) - \sum_F \sum_{j=1}^{t_F}

1591: %    \left(\sqrt{\lambda_F (a_j^F - a_0^F)} \,\,q_{F,j}(\xx)\right)^2.$$

1592: %    Then for $\ss \in S$, $h(\ss) = f(\ss) - \sum_F \sum_{j=1}^{t_F}

1593: %    \left(\sqrt{\lambda_F (a_j^F - a_0^F)} \,\,q_{F,j}(\ss)\right)^2 =

1594: %    f(\ss) - \sum_F \lambda_F (a_{s_j}^F - a_0^F) = 0$ which implies

1595: %    that $h(\xx) \in \I(S)$ since $\I(S)$ is radical. Therefore, $f$ is

1596: %    $t$-sos and thus, $\I(S)$ is $\textup{TH}_t$-exact.

1597: % \end{proof}

1598: 

1599: 

1600: \begin{remark} \label{rem:oddcycle} The theta-rank of $\I(S)$ could be

1601:   much smaller than the upper bound in Remark~\ref{rem:k parallel

1602:     translates}. Consider a $(2t+1)$-cycle $G$ and the set $S_G$ of

1603:   characteristic vectors of its stable

1604:   sets. Proposition~\ref{prop:2sos} shows that $\I(S_G)$ is

1605:   $\textup{TH}_2$-exact. However, we need $t+1$ translates of the

1606:   facet cut out by $\sum_{i=1}^{2t+1} x_i = t$ to cover $S_G$.

1607: \end{remark}

1608: 

1609: In the rest of this section we derive various consequences of

1610: Theorem~\ref{thm:perfect}. Finite point sets with property (5) in

1611: Theorem~\ref{thm:perfect} have been studied in various contexts. In

1612: particular, Corollaries \ref{cor:perfect}, \ref{cor:perfectgraph} and

1613: \ref{cor:down-closed perfect} below were also observed independently

1614: by Greg Kuperberg, Raman Sanyal, Axel Werner and G{\"u}nter Ziegler

1615: (personal communication). In their work, $\textup{conv}(S)$ is called

1616: a {\bf 2-level polytope} when property (5) in

1617: Theorem~\ref{thm:perfect} holds.

1618: 

1619: If $S$ is a finite subset of $\ZZ^n$ and $\mathcal L$ is the smallest

1620: lattice in $\ZZ^n$ containing $S$, then the lattice polytope

1621: $\textup{conv}(S)$ is said to be {\bf compressed} if every {\em

1622:   reverse lexicographic} triangulation of the lattice points in

1623: $\textup{conv}(S)$ is {\em unimodular} with respect to $\mathcal L$.

1624: Compressed polytopes were introduced by Stanley

1625: \cite{StanleyCompressed}.  Corollary~\ref{cor:perfect} (4) and Theorem

1626: 2.4 in \cite{Sullivant} (see also the references after Theorem 2.4 in

1627: \cite{Sullivant} for earlier citations of part or unpublished versions

1628: of this result), imply that a finite set $S \subset \RR^n$ is exact if

1629: and only if $\textup{conv}(S)$ is affinely equivalent to a compressed

1630: polytope.

1631:   

1632: \begin{corollary} \label{cor:perfect} Let $S,S' \subset \RR^n$ be

1633:   exact sets. Then

1634: \begin{enumerate}

1635: \item all points of $S$ are vertices of $\textup{conv}(S)$,

1636: \item the set of vertices of any face of $\textup{conv}(S)$ is again

1637:   exact, 

1638: \item the product $S \times S'$ is exact, and

1639: \item $\textup{conv}(S)$ is affinely equivalent to a $0/1$ polytope.

1640: \end{enumerate}

1641: \end{corollary}

1642: 

1643: \begin{proof} 

1644:   The first three properties follow from Theorem~\ref{thm:perfect}

1645:   (5).  If the dimension of $\textup{conv}(S)$ is $d \,\,(\leq n)$,

1646:   then $\textup{conv}(S)$ has at least $d$ non-parallel facets. If

1647:   $\aa \cdot \xx \geq b$ cuts out a facet in this collection, then

1648:   $\textup{conv}(S)$ is supported by both $\{ \xx \in \RR^n \,:\, \aa

1649:   \cdot \xx = b\}$ and a parallel translate of it. Taking these two

1650:   parallel hyperplanes from each of the $d$ facets gives a

1651:   parallelepiped. By Theorem~\ref{thm:perfect}, $S$ is contained in

1652:   the vertices of this parallelepiped intersected with the affine hull

1653:   of $S$. This proves (4).

1654: \end{proof}

1655: 

1656: 

1657: By Corollary~\ref{cor:perfect} (4), it essentially suffices to look at

1658: subsets of $\{0,1\}^n$ to obtain all exact finite varieties in

1659: $\RR^n$.  In $\RR^2$, the set of vertices of any $0/1$-polytope verify

1660: this property.  In $\RR^3$ there are eight full-dimensional

1661: $0/1$-polytopes up to affine equivalence. In Figures~\ref{fig:perfect

1662:   in r3} and \ref{fig:non-perfect in r3} the convex hulls of the exact

1663: and non-exact $0/1$ configurations in $\RR^3$ are shown.

1664: 

1665: \begin{figure}

1666: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{goodpoly.eps}

1667: \caption{Convex hulls of exact $0/1$ point sets in $\RR^3$.}

1668: \label{fig:perfect in r3}

1669: \end{figure}

1670:        

1671: \begin{figure}

1672: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{badpoly.eps}

1673: \caption{Convex hulls of non-exact $0/1$ point sets in $\RR^3$.}

1674: \label{fig:non-perfect in r3} 

1675: \end{figure}

1676: 

1677: \begin{example} \label{ex:perfect}

1678:   The vertices of the following $0/1$-polytopes in $\RR^n$ are exact

1679:   for every $n$: (1) hypercubes, (2) (regular) cross polytopes, (3)

1680:   hypersimplices (includes simplices), (4) joins of $2$-level

1681:   polytopes, and (5) stable set polytopes of perfect graphs on $n$

1682:   vertices.

1683: \end{example}

1684: 

1685: % \begin{example} \label{ex:notperfect}

1686: %   In contrast to (5) in Example~\ref{ex:perfect}, the set $S$ of

1687: %   vertices of $[0,1]^5$ that satisfy $\sum x_i = 1$ or $\sum x_i = 3$

1688: %   is not exact. The convex hull of $S$ has 22 facets one of which is

1689: %   defined by $- x_1 - x_2 - x_3 + x_4 + x_5 \leq 1$. The linear form

1690: %   $-x_1 - x_2 - x_3 + x_4 + x_5$ takes values $-1,1

1691: %   \,\textup{and}\,-3$ on the points of $S$ which proves that $S$ is

1692: %   not exact.

1693: % \end{example}

1694: 

1695: % \begin{example}

1696: %   Exact zero-dimensional varieties may have convex hulls that are

1697: %   neither simple nor simplicial. To see this, let $S_n$ be the

1698: %   vertices of $P_n := \{ \xx \in \RR^n \,:\, 0 \leq x_i \leq 1

1699: %   \,\,\forall \,\,i=1,\ldots, n, \,\,\, 1 \leq \sum x_i \leq 2 \}$.

1700: %   Then $S$ has $n+ {n \choose 2}$ points and the $2n+2$ inequalities

1701: %   in the above description of $P_n$ are precisely the facet

1702: %   inequalities of $P_n$. Each point in $S$ is contained in $n+1$

1703: %   facets. Further, $P_n$ has $n+1$ simplicial facets and $n+1$

1704: %   non-simplicial facets, the latter with ${n \choose 2}$ vertices

1705: %   each.

1706: % \end{example}

1707: 

1708: \begin{theorem} \label{thm:2^n facets}

1709:   If $S$ is a finite exact point set then $\textup{conv}(S)$ has at

1710:   most $2^d$ facets and vertices, where $d=\dim \textup{conv}(S)$.

1711:   Both bounds are sharp.

1712: \end{theorem}

1713: 

1714: \begin{proof}

1715:   The bound on the number of vertices is immediate by

1716:   Corollary~\ref{cor:perfect} (4) and is achieved by $[0,1]^d$.

1717:   

1718:   For a polytope $P$ with an exact vertex set $S$, define a {\bf face

1719:     pair} to be an unordered pair $(F_1,F_2)$ of proper faces of $P$

1720:   such that $S \subseteq F_1 \cup F_2$ and $F_1$ and $F_2$ lie in

1721:   parallel hyperplanes, or equivalently, there exists a linear form

1722:   $h_{F_1,F_2}(\xx)$ such that $h_{F_1,F_2}(F_1)=0$ and

1723:   $h_{F_1,F_2}(F_2)=1$. We will show that if $\textup{dim} \,\,P = d$

1724:   then $P$ has at most $2^d-1$ face pairs and $2^d$ facets.

1725:   

1726:   If $d=1$, then an exact $S$ consists of two distinct points and $P$

1727:   has two facets and one face pair as desired. Assume the result holds

1728:   for $(d-1)$-polytopes with exact vertex sets and consider a

1729:   $d$-polytope $P$ with exact vertex set $S$. Let $F$ be a facet of

1730:   $P$ which by Theorem \ref{thm:perfect}, is in a face pair $(F,F')$

1731:   of $P$.  Since exactness does not depend on the affine embedding, we

1732:   may assume that $P$ is full-dimensional and that $F$ spans the

1733:   hyperplane $\{\xx \,:\, x_{d}=0 \}$, while $F'$ lies in $\{\xx \,:\,

1734:   x_{d}=1\}$. By Corollary \ref{cor:perfect}, $F$ satisfies the

1735:   induction hypothesis and so has at most $(2^{d-1}-1)$ face pairs.

1736:   Any face pair of $P$ besides $(F,F')$ induces a face pair of $F$ by

1737:   intersection with $F$, and every facet of $P$ is in a face pair of

1738:   $P$ since $S$ is exact.  The plan is to count how many face pairs of

1739:   $P$ induce the same face pair of $F$ and the number of facets they

1740:   contain.

1741:   

1742:   Fix a face pair $(F_1,F_2)$ of $F$, with associated linear form

1743:   $h_{F_1,F_2}$ depending only on $x_1,\ldots,x_{d-1}$. Suppose

1744:   $(F_1,F_2)$ is induced by a face pair of $P$ with associated linear

1745:   form $H(\xx)$. Since $H$ and $h_{F_1,F_2}$ agree on every vertex of

1746:   $F$, a facet of $P$, $H(\xx)=h_{F_1,F_2}(x_1,\ldots,x_{d-1})+cx_{d}$

1747:   for some constant $c$.

1748:   

1749:   If $h_{F_1,F_2}(x_1,\ldots,x_{d-1})$ takes the same value $v$ on all

1750:   of $F'$, then $H(F')=v+c = 0 \,\textup{or} \,1$ which implies that

1751:   $c=-v$ or $c=1-v$. The two possibilities lead to the face pairs

1752:   $(\textup{conv}(F_1 \cup F'), F_2)$ and $(\textup{conv}(F_2 \cup

1753:   F'), F_1)$ of $P$.  Each such pair contains at most one facet of

1754:   $P$.

1755:   

1756:   If $h_{F_1,F_2}(x_1,\ldots,x_{d-1})$ takes more than one value on the

1757:   vertices of $F'$, then these values must be $v$ and $v+1$ for some

1758:   $v$ since $H$ takes values $0$ and $1$ on the vertices of $F'$.  In

1759:   that case, $c=-v$, so $H$ is unique and we get at most one face pair

1760:   of $P$ inducing $(F_1,F_2)$. This pair will contain at most two

1761:   facets of $P$.

1762: 

1763:   Since there are at most $2^{d-1}-1$ face pairs in $F$, they give us

1764:   at most $2(2^{d-1}-1)$ face pairs and facets of $P$. Since we have

1765:   not counted $(F,F')$ as a face pair of $P$, and $F$ and $F'$ as

1766:   possible facets of $P$, we get the desired result.  The bound on the

1767:   number of facets is attained by cross-polytopes.

1768: \end{proof}

1769: 

1770: \begin{remark}

1771:   G{\"u}nter Ziegler has pointed out that our proof of

1772:   Theorem~\ref{thm:2^n facets} can be refined to yield that $P$ (as

1773:   used above) has $2^d-1$ face pairs if and only if it is a simplex

1774:   and $2^d$ facets if and only if it is a regular cross-polytope.

1775: \end{remark}

1776: 

1777: 

1778: 

1779: % \begin{remark}

1780: %   G{\"u}nter Ziegler has pointed out the following refinements of

1781: %   Theorem~\ref{thm:2^n facets} that follow from our proof. We state

1782: %   these facts without proof using the notation used above.

1783: % \begin{enumerate}

1784: % \item As noted, the number of face pairs of $P$ is at most twice the

1785: %   number of face pairs of $F$ plus one more coming from $(F,F')$.

1786: %   Equality holds if and only if $P$ is a pyramid over $F$. In

1787: %   particular, $P$ has at most $2^d-1$ face pairs with equality if and

1788: %   only if $P$ is a simplex.

1789: % \item The proof also showed that the number of facets in $P$ is at

1790: %   most twice the number of face pairs in $F$ plus two more from $F$

1791: %   and $F'$ possibly.  Equality occurs in situations such as when $P$

1792: %   is a cube or a cross-polytope. Therefore, $P$ has at most $2^d$

1793: %   facets and equality holds if and only if $P$ is affinely equivalent

1794: %   to a regular cross-polytope.

1795: % \end{enumerate}

1796: % \end{remark}

1797: %   Therefore, the number of face pairs of $P$ is at most twice the

1798: %   number of face pairs of $F$ plus one more coming from $(F,F')$.

1799: %   Equality holds if and only if $P$ is a pyramid over $F$. Indeed, if

1800: %   $P$ is a pyramid over $F$, then $F'$ is a point and every face pair

1801: %   $(F_1,F_2)$ in $F$ is induced by the two face pairs

1802: %   $(\textup{conv}(F_1 \cup F'), F_2)$ and $(\textup{conv}(F_2 \cup

1803: %   F'), F_1)$ of $P$. Conversely, if every face pair in $F$ is induced

1804: %   by two face pairs in $P$, then since $F$ has $d-1$ non-parallel

1805: %   facets, each of which is in a distinct face pair of $F$, there are

1806: %   $d-1$ linear forms $h_{F_1,F_2}(x_1,\ldots,x_{d-1})$ with $d-1$

1807: %   linearly independent normal vectors that take exactly one value each

1808: %   on $F'$. This implies that $F'$ is a point and $P$ is a pyramid over

1809: %   $F$. In particular, since there are at most $2^{d-1}-1$ face pairs

1810: %   in $F$, $P$ has at most $2(2^{d-1}-1)+1 = 2^d-1$ face pairs with

1811: %   equality if and only if $P$ is a simplex.

1812:   

1813: %   Also, the number of facets in $P$ is at most twice the number of

1814: %   face pairs in $F$ plus two more from $F$ and $F'$ possibly.

1815: %   Equality occurs in situations such as when $P$ is a cube or a

1816: %   cross-polytope. Therefore, $P$ has at most $2(2^{d-1}-1)+2 = 2^d$

1817: %   facets as claimed. Equality holds if and only if $P$ is affinely

1818: %   equivalent to a regular cross-polytope. To see the ``only if''

1819: %   direction of this assertion, recall that if $P$ has $2^d$ facets

1820: %   then $F$ must have $2^{d-1}-1$ face pairs which implies that $F$ is

1821: %   a $(d-1)$-simplex.  Also, $F'$ must be facet of $P$ and it will also

1822: %   have $2^{d-1}-1$ face pairs induced by each of the face pairs of $P$

1823: %   inducing the $2^{d-1}-1$ face pairs of $F$. Therefore, $F'$ is also

1824: %   a $(d-1)$-simplex. FINISH .... \marginpar{FINISH}

1825: 

1826: Recall that Problem~\ref{prob:lovasz} was inspired by perfect graphs.

1827: Theorem~\ref{thm:perfect} adds to the characterizations of a perfect

1828: graph (c.f. Theorem~\ref{thm:knownforperfectgraphs}) as follows.

1829: 

1830: \begin{corollary} \label{cor:perfectgraph}

1831:   For a graph $G$, let $S_G$ denote the set of characteristic vectors

1832:   of stable sets in $G$. Then the following are equivalent.

1833:   \begin{enumerate}

1834:   \item The graph $G$ is perfect.

1835:   \item The stable set polytope, $\textup{STAB}(G)$, is a $2$-level

1836:     polytope.

1837: %   \item The set  $S_G$ is exact.

1838: %   \item The vanishing ideal $\I(S_G) = I_G$ is $(1,1)$-sos.

1839: %   \item For each facet $F$ of $\textup{STAB}(G)$, $S_G$ is contained in

1840: %     the union of $F$ and one other translate of the hyperplane spanned

1841: %     by $F$. \marginpar{say 2-level polytope}

1842:   \end{enumerate}

1843: \end{corollary}

1844: 

1845: A polytope $P$ in $\RR^n_{\geq 0}$ is said to be {\bf down-closed} if

1846:  for all $\vv \in P$ and  $\vv' \in \RR^n_{\geq 0}$ 

1847: such that $v'_i \leq v_i$ for $i=1,\ldots,n$, $\vv' \in P$. For a

1848: graph $G$, $\textup{STAB}(G)$ is a down-closed $0/1$-polytope, and $G$

1849: is perfect if and only if the vertex set of $\textup{STAB}(G)$ is

1850: exact. We now prove that all down-closed $0/1$-polytopes with exact

1851: vertex sets are stable set polytopes of perfect graphs.

1852: 

1853: \begin{theorem} \label{thm:down-closed perfect}

1854:   Let $P \subseteq \RR^n$ be a down-closed $0/1$-polytope and $S$ be

1855:   its set of vertices. Then $S$ is exact if and only if all facets of

1856:   $P$ are either defined by non-negativity constraints on the

1857:   variables or by an inequality of the form $\sum_{i \in I} x_i \leq

1858:   1$ for some $I \subseteq [n]$.

1859: \end{theorem}

1860: 

1861: \begin{proof} If $P$ is not full-dimensional then since it is

1862:   down-closed, it must be contained in a coordinate hyperplane $x_i =

1863:   0$ and the arguments below can be repeated in this lower-dimensional

1864:   space. So we may assume that $P$ is $n$-dimensional. Then since $P$

1865:   is down-closed, $S$ contains $\{{\bf 0},\ee_1, \ldots, \ee_n\}$.

1866:   

1867:   If all facets of $P$ are of the stated form, using that $S \subseteq

1868:   \{0,1\}^n$, it is straight forward to check that $S$ is exact.

1869: % each $\ss \in S$ satisfies either $x_i = 0$ or $x_i =

1870: %   1$. Suppose $P$ has a facet inequality of the form $\sum_{i \in I}

1871: %   x_i \leq 1$. Then since every $\ss \in S$ satisfies this inequality,

1872: %   $S$ must be contained in $$\left\{ \xx \in \RR^n \,:\, \sum_{i \in

1873: %       I} x_i = 1 \right\} \cup \left\{ \xx \in \RR^n \,:\, \sum_{i \in

1874: %       I} x_i = 0 \right\}.$$

1875: %   Therefore $S$ is exact.

1876:   

1877:   Now assume that $S$ is exact and $g(\xx) \geq 0$ is a facet

1878:   inequality of $P$ that is not a non-negativity constraint. Then

1879:   $g(\xx) := c - \sum_{i=1}^{n} a_i x_i \geq 0$ for some integers $c,

1880:   a_1, \ldots, a_n$ with $c \neq 0$. Since ${\bf 0} \in S$ and $S$ is

1881:   exact, we get that $g(\ss)$ equals $0$ or $c$ for all $\ss \in S$.

1882:   Therefore, for all $i$, $g(\ee_i) = c-a_i$ equals $0$ or $c$, so 

1883:   $a_i$ is either $0$ or $c$. Dividing through by $c$, we get that the

1884:   facet inequality $g(\xx) \geq 0$ is of the form $\sum_{i \in I} x_i

1885:   \leq 1$ for some $I \subseteq [n]$.

1886: \end{proof}

1887: 

1888: \begin{corollary} \label{cor:down-closed perfect}

1889:   Let $P \subseteq  \RR^n$ be a full-dimensional down-closed

1890:   $0/1$-polytope and $S$ be its vertex set. Then $S$ is exact if and

1891:   only if $P$ is the stable set polytope of a perfect graph.

1892: \end{corollary}

1893: 

1894: \begin{proof}

1895:   By Corollary~\ref{cor:perfectgraph} we only need to prove the

1896:   ``only-if'' direction. Suppose $S$ is exact. Then by

1897:   Theorem~\ref{thm:down-closed perfect}, all facet inequalities of $P$

1898:   are either of the form $x_i \geq 0$ for some $i \in [n]$ or $\sum_{i

1899:     \in I} x_i \leq 1$ for some $I \subseteq [n]$. Define the graph

1900:   $G=([n],E)$ where $\{i,j\} \in E$ if and only if $\{i,j\} \subseteq

1901:   I$ for some $I$ that indexes a facet inequality of $P$.

1902:   

1903:   We prove that $P = \textup{STAB}(G)$ and that $G$ is perfect. Let $K

1904:   \subseteq [n]$ such that its characteristic vector $\chi^K \in S$.

1905:   If there exists $i,j \in K$ such that $i,j \in I$ for some $I$ that

1906:   indexes a facet inequality of $P$, then $1-\sum_{i \in I} x_i$ takes

1907:   three different values when evaluated at the points ${\bf 0}, \ee_i,

1908:   \chi^K$ in $S$ which contradicts that $S$ is exact. 

1909:   Therefore, $K$

1910:   is a stable set of $G$ and $P \subseteq \textup{STAB}(G)$. If $K

1911:   \subseteq [n]$ is a stable set of $G$ then, by construction, for

1912:   every $I$ indexing a facet inequality of $P$, $\chi^K$ lies on

1913:   either $\sum_{i \in I} x_i = 1$ or $\sum_{i \in I} x_i = 0$.

1914:   Therefore $\chi^K \in P$ and $\textup{STAB}(G) \subseteq P$. Since

1915:   all facet inequalities of $\textup{STAB}(G)$ are either

1916:   non-negativities or clique inequalities, $G$ is perfect by

1917:   \cite[Theorem~9.2.4 iii.]{GLS}.

1918: \end{proof}

1919: 

1920: 

1921: % Theorem~\ref{thm:perfect} suggests that for a finite set $S \subset

1922: % \RR^n$ we may want to consider the ``idempotent (polytope)

1923: % relaxation'' of $\conv(S)$ defined as

1924: % $$\textup{Ip}(S)=\{ \xx : g(\xx) \geq 0 \textrm{ for all } g \textrm{

1925: %   linear and idempotent modulo }\I(S)\}.$$

1926: % Since all linear idempotent

1927: % polynomials are $1$-sos we immediately have that $\textup{TH}_1(\I(S))

1928: % \subseteq \textup{Ip}(S)$ and Theorem~\ref{thm:perfect} translates as

1929: % $\textup{TH}_1(\I(S))=\conv(S)$ if and only if

1930: % $\textup{Ip}(S)=\conv(S)$.  For the stable set polytope, it is easy to

1931: % see that $\textup{Ip}(S_G)$ is simply the well-known polytope

1932: % relaxation $\textup{QSTAB}(G)$ of $\textup{STAB}(G)$, defined as

1933: % $$\textup{QSTAB}(G)=\left\{\xx \in \RR^n:x_i \geq 0; \sum_{i \in C}

1934: %   x_i \leq 1, \textrm{ for all cliques } C \textrm{ of } G \right\}.$$

1935: % Thus in this case, Theorem~\ref{thm:perfect} recovers some of the

1936: % results in \cite{GLS} such as $\textup{TH}(G)=\textup{STAB}(G)$ if and

1937: % only if $\textup{QSTAB}=\textup{STAB}(G)$.

1938: 

1939: 

1940: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1941: \section{Arbitrary $\textup{TH}_1$-exact Ideals} \label{sec:structure  

1942:   arbitrary S} 

1943: 

1944: In this last section we describe $\textup{TH}_1(I)$ for an arbitrary

1945: (not necessarily real radical or zero-dimensional) ideal $I \subseteq

1946: \RR[\xx]$. The main structural result is

1947: Theorem~\ref{thm:intersection} which allows the construction of

1948: non-trivial high-dimensional $\textup{TH}_1$-exact ideals as in

1949: Example~\ref{ex:infinite perfect set}.

1950: 

1951: In this study, the {\em convex quadrics} in $\RR[\xx]$ play a

1952: particularly important role. These are precisely the polynomials of

1953: degree two that can be written as $F(\xx)=\xx^t A \xx + \bb^t \xx +

1954: c$, where $A \not = 0$ is an $n \times n$ positive semidefinite matrix, $\bb

1955: \in \RR^n$ and $c \in \RR$.  Note that every sum of squares of linear

1956: polynomials in $\RR[\xx]$ is a convex quadric.

1957: 

1958: 

1959: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:contained}

1960:   For $I \subseteq \RR[\xx]$, $\textup{TH}_1(I) \neq \RR^n$ if and

1961:   only if there exists some convex quadric $F \in I$.

1962: \end{lemma}

1963: 

1964: \begin{proof}

1965:   If $\textup{TH}_1(I) \neq \RR^n$, there exists a degree one polynomial $f$

1966:   that is strictly positive on $\textup{TH}_1(I)$, hence $1$-sos modulo $I$.

1967:   Then $f(\xx) \equiv g(\xx)$ mod $I$ for some $1$-sos $g(\xx) \not = 0$ and 

1968:   $g(\xx)-f(\xx) \in I$ is a convex quadric.

1969:   

1970:   Conversely, suppose $\xx^tA\xx + \bb^t \xx + c \in I$ with $A

1971:   \succeq 0$. Then for any $\dd \in \RR^n$,

1972:   $$(\xx+\dd)^tA(\xx+\dd) = \xx^tA\xx + 2\dd^tA\xx +\dd^tA\dd \equiv

1973:   (2\dd^tA-\bb^t) \xx + \dd^tA\dd - c \mod I.$$

1974:   Therefore, since

1975:   $(\xx+\dd)^tA(\xx+\dd)$ is a sum of squares of linear polynomials,

1976:   the linear polynomial $(2\dd^tA-\bb^t) \xx + \dd^tA\dd - c $ is

1977:   $1$-sos mod $I$ and $\textup{TH}_1(I)$ must satisfy it. Since $\dd$

1978:   can be chosen so that $(2\dd^tA-\bb^t) \neq 0$, $\textup{TH}_1(I)$

1979:   is not trivial.

1980: \end{proof}

1981: 

1982: % \begin{example}

1983: %   For $S \subseteq \RR^2$, $\textup{TH}_1(\I(S)) \neq \RR^2$ if and

1984: %   only if $S$ is contained in a pair of parallel lines, a parabola, or

1985: %   an ellipse.

1986: % \end{example}

1987: 

1988: % \begin{corollary}

1989: %   If $\xx^tA\xx + \bb^t\xx + c \in I$ with $A

1990: %   \succeq 0$ and of full rank then $\textup{TH}_1(I)$ is bounded.

1991: % \end{corollary}

1992: 

1993: % \begin{proof}

1994: %   In this case $\{2\dd^tA-\bb^t : \dd \in \RR^n\}=\RR^n$ and so there

1995: %   are valid inequalities for $\textup{TH}_1(I)$ with all possible

1996: %   elements of $\RR^n$ as normals.

1997: % \end{proof}

1998: 

1999: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:theta_intersection}

2000:   For an ideal $I \subseteq \RR[\xx]$, $\textup{TH}_1(I)=\bigcap

2001:   \textup{TH}_1(\langle F \rangle)$, where $F$ varies over all convex

2002:   quadrics in $I$.

2003: \end{lemma}

2004: \begin{proof}

2005:   If $F \in I$ then $\langle F \rangle \subseteq I$. Also, if $f$

2006:   is linear and $1$-sos mod $\langle F \rangle$ then it is also

2007:   $1$-sos mod $I$. Therefore, $\textup{TH}_1(I) \subseteq

2008:   \textup{TH}_1(\langle F \rangle)$.

2009:   

2010:   To prove the reverse inclusion, we need to show that if $f$ is a linear

2011:   polynomial that is nonnegative on $\textup{TH}_1(I)$, it is also nonnegative 

2012:   on $\bigcap_{F \in I} \textup{TH}_1(\langle F \rangle)$, where $F$

2013:   is a convex quadric. It suffices to show that whenever $f$ is linear

2014:   and $1$-sos mod $I$, then there is a convex quadric $F \in I$ such

2015:   that $f(\xx) \geq 0$ is valid for $\textup{TH}_1(\langle F

2016:   \rangle)$, or equivalently that $f$ is $1$-sos mod $\langle F

2017:   \rangle$. Since $f$ is $1$-sos mod $I$, there is a sum of squares of

2018:   linear polynomials $g(\xx)$ such that $f(\xx) \equiv g(\xx)$ mod

2019:   $I$. But $g$ is a convex quadric, hence so is $g(\xx)-f(\xx)$.  Thus

2020:   $f$ is $1$-sos mod the ideal $\langle g(\xx) - f(\xx) \rangle$ and

2021:   we can take $F(\xx) = g(\xx)-f(\xx)$.

2022: \end{proof}

2023: 

2024: \begin{lemma} \label{lemma:theta_convex}

2025:   If $F(\xx)=\xx^tA\xx + \bb^t\xx + c$ with $A \succeq 0$, then

2026:   $\textup{TH}_1(\langle F \rangle)=\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(F))$.

2027: \end{lemma}

2028: \begin{proof}

2029:   We know that $\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(F)) \subseteq

2030:   \textup{TH}_1(\langle F \rangle)$ and, since $F$ is convex,

2031:   $\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(F))=\{\xx \in \RR^n \,:\, F(\xx)\leq 0\}$.

2032:   Thus, if for every $\xx \in \V_{\RR}(F)$ $\textup{grad}F(\xx) \neq

2033:   {\bf 0}$, then $\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(F))$ is supported by the

2034:   tangent hyperplanes to $\V_{\RR}(F)$. In this case, to show that

2035:   $\textup{TH}_1(\langle F \rangle) \subseteq

2036:   \textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(F))$, it suffices to prove that the defining

2037:   (linear) polynomials of all tangent hyperplanes to $\V_{\RR}(F)$ are

2038:   $1$-sos mod $\langle F \rangle$.  The proof of the ``if'' direction

2039:   of Lemma~\ref{lem:contained} shows that it would suffice to prove

2040:   that a tangent hyperplane to $\V_{\RR}(F)$ has the form

2041:   $(2\dd^tA-\bb^t) \xx + \dd^tA\dd - c = 0$, for some $\dd \in

2042:   \RR^n$. The tangent at $\xx_0 \in \V_{\RR}(F)$ has equation

2043:   $0=(2A\xx_0+\bb)^t(\xx-\xx_0)$ which can be rewritten as

2044:   $$0= (2\xx_0^tA+\bb^t)\xx - 2\xx_0^tA\xx_0 -\bb^t\xx_0 =

2045:   (2\xx_0^tA+\bb^t)\xx -\xx_0^tA\xx_0 + c,$$

2046:   and so setting

2047:   $\dd=-\xx_0$ gives the result. 

2048:   

2049:   Suppose there is an $\xx_0$ such that $F(\xx_0) = 0$ and

2050:   $\textup{grad} F(\xx_0) = {\bf 0}$. By translation we may assume

2051:   that $\xx_0 = 0$, hence, $c = 0$ and $\bb = {\bf 0}$. Therefore $F =

2052:   \xx^t A \xx = \sum h_i^2$ where the $h_i$ are linear.  Since

2053:   $\V_{\RR}(\langle F\rangle)=\V_{\RR}(\langle h_1,\ldots,h_m\rangle)$ it

2054:   is enough to prove that all inequalities $\pm h_i \geq 0$ are valid

2055:   for $\textup{TH}_1(\langle F \rangle)$.  For any

2056:   $\epsilon >0$ we have

2057:   $$(\pm h_l + \epsilon)^2 + \sum_{i \not = l} h_i^2 = F \pm 2

2058:   \epsilon h_l + \epsilon^2 \equiv 2 \epsilon(\pm h_l + \epsilon/2)

2059:   \,\,\textup{mod} \,\, \langle F \rangle,$$

2060:   so $\pm h_l + \epsilon/2$

2061:   is $1$-sos mod $\langle F \rangle$ for all $l$ and all $\epsilon

2062:   >0$. This implies that all the inequalities $\pm h_l + \epsilon/2

2063:   \geq 0$ are valid for $\textup{TH}_1(\langle F \rangle)$, therefore

2064:   so are the inequalities $\pm h_l \geq 0$.

2065: \end{proof}

2066: 

2067: \begin{theorem} \label{thm:intersection} Let $I \subseteq \RR[\xx]$ be

2068:   any ideal, then 

2069:   $$\textup{TH}_1(I)=\bigcap_{{F \in I}\atop{F \textrm{ convex

2070:         quadric}}} \textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(F)) = \bigcap_{{F \in

2071:       I}\atop{F \textrm{ convex quadric}}} \{ \xx \in \RR^n : F(\xx)

2072:   \leq 0\}.$$

2073: \end{theorem}

2074: \begin{proof}

2075:   Immediate from Lemma \ref{lem:theta_intersection} and Lemma

2076:   \ref{lemma:theta_convex}.

2077: \end{proof}

2078: 

2079: \begin{example} \label{ex:infinite perfect set}

2080:   Theorem~\ref{thm:intersection} shows that some non-principal ideals

2081:   such as $I=\langle x^2-z,y^2-z \rangle \subseteq \RR[x,y,z]$ are

2082:   $\textup{TH}_1$-exact. Since $\V_{\RR}(I)=\{(\pm t,\pm t,t^2): t

2083:   \in \RR\}$, fixing the third coordinate we get the four points

2084:   $(x,y,t^2)$ where $|x|=|y|=|t|$ which implies that 

2085:   $$\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I))\supseteq \{(x,y,t^2): |x| \leq

2086:   t, |y| \leq t, t \geq 0\}.$$ It is easy to see that the right hand

2087:   side is equal to $\{(x,y,z): x^2 \leq z, y^2 \leq z\}$ which is

2088:   exactly $\conv(\V_{\RR}(x^2-z)) \bigcap \conv(\V_{\RR}(y^2-z))$ and

2089:   so contains $\textup{TH}_1(I)$ which contains

2090:   $\textup{conv}(\V_{\RR}(I))$. So all inclusions must be equalities

2091:   and $I$ is $\textup{TH}_1$-exact. This kind of reasoning allows us

2092:   to construct non-trivial examples of $\textup{TH}_1$-exact ideals

2093:   with high-dimensional varieties.

2094: \end{example}

2095: 

2096: % \begin{example}

2097: %   Theorem~\ref{thm:intersection} also gives us easy examples of

2098: %   non-radical $\textup{TH}_1$-exact ideals. For example $I=\langle x^2

2099: %   \rangle$ is $\textup{TH}_1$-exact since $x^2$ itself is a convex

2100: %   quadric, or by the argument in Example~\ref{ex:conversefalse}.

2101: % \end{example}

2102: 

2103: \begin{example} \label{ex:four points}

2104:   Consider the set $S=\{(0,0),(1,0),(0,1),(2,2)\}$. Then the family of

2105:   all quadratic curves in $\I(S)$ is

2106: $$a(x^2-x) + b(y^2-y) - (\frac{a+b}{2}) xy = (x,y) \left[

2107: \begin{array}{cc}

2108: a & -(\frac{a+b}{4}) \\

2109:  -(\frac{a+b}{4})  & b

2110: \end{array}

2111: \right] \left( \begin{array}{c} x \\ y \end{array} \right) -ax -by.$$

2112: Since the case where both $a$ and $b$ are zero is trivial, we may

2113: normalize by setting $a+b=1$ and get the matrix in the quadratic to be

2114: $$\left[

2115: \begin{array}{cc}

2116: \lambda & -1/4 \\

2117:  -1/4  & 1-\lambda

2118: \end{array}

2119: \right] $$

2120: with $\lambda \geq 0$. This matrix is positive semidefinite

2121: if and only if $\lambda(1-\lambda) - 1/16 \geq 0$, or equivalently, if

2122: and only if $\lambda \in [1/2 - \sqrt{3}/4, 1/2 + \sqrt{3}/4]$.

2123: 

2124: This means that $(x,y) \in \textup{TH}_1(\I(S))$ if and only if, for

2125: all such $\lambda$,

2126: $$\lambda(x^2-x) + (1-\lambda)(y^2-y) -\frac{1}{2} xy \leq 0.$$

2127: Since the

2128: right-hand-side does not depend on $\lambda$, and the left-hand-side

2129: is a convex combination of $x^2-x$ and $y^2-y$, the inequality holds

2130: for every $\lambda \in [1/2 - \sqrt{3}/4, 1/2 + \sqrt{3}/4]$ if and

2131: only if it holds at the end points of the interval. Equivalently, if

2132: and only if

2133: $$\left(\frac{1}{2} - \frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}\right)(x^2-x) +

2134: \left(\frac{1}{2} + \frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}\right)(y^2-y) -\frac{1}{2}

2135: xy \leq 0,$$

2136: and

2137: $$\left(\frac{1}{2} + \frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}\right)(x^2-x) +

2138: \left(\frac{1}{2} - \frac{\sqrt{3}}{4}\right)(y^2-y) -\frac{1}{2}

2139: xy \leq 0.$$

2140: But this is just the intersection of the convex hull of the two

2141: curves obtained by turning the inequalities into equalities.

2142: Figure~\ref{fig:thetabody} shows this intersection.

2143: 

2144: \begin{figure} 

2145: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{pic2.eps}

2146: \caption{Example~\ref{ex:four points}}

2147: \label{fig:thetabody}

2148: \end{figure}

2149: \end{example}

2150: 

2151: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2152: 

2153: \bibliographystyle{plain} 

2154: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

2155: 

2156: \bibitem{Barvinok}

2157: Alexander Barvinok.

2158: \newblock {\em A course in convexity}, volume~54 of {\em Graduate Studies in

2159:   Mathematics}.

2160: \newblock American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2002.

2161: 

2162: \bibitem{BorweinLewis}

2163: Jonathan~M. Borwein and Adrian~S. Lewis.

2164: \newblock {\em Convex analysis and nonlinear optimization. Theory and

2165:   examples}.

2166: \newblock CMS Books in Mathematics/Ouvrages de Math\'ematiques de la SMC, 3.

2167:   Springer, New York, second edition, 2006.

2168: 

2169: \bibitem{CLO}

2170: David Cox, John Little, and Donal O'Shea.

2171: \newblock {\em Ideals, {V}arieties and {A}lgorithms}.

2172: \newblock Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992.

2173: 

2174: \bibitem{GoemansWilliamson}

2175: Michel~X. Goemans and David~P. Williamson.

2176: \newblock Improved approximation algorithms for maximum cut and satisfiability

2177:   problems using semidefinite programming.

2178: \newblock {\em J. Assoc. Comput. Mach.}, 42(6):1115--1145, 1995.

2179: 

2180: \bibitem{GLPT}

2181: Jo{\~a}o Gouveia, Monique Laurent, Pablo Parrilo, and Rekha Thomas.

2182: \newblock A new hierarchy of semidefinite programming relaxations for cycles in

2183:   binary matroids and cuts in graphs.

2184: \newblock arXiv:0907.4518.

2185: 

2186: \bibitem{GLS}

2187: Martin Gr{\"o}tschel, L{\'a}szl{\'o} Lov{\'a}sz, and Alexander Schrijver.

2188: \newblock {\em Geometric algorithms and combinatorial optimization}, volume~2

2189:   of {\em Algorithms and Combinatorics}.

2190: \newblock Springer-Verlag, Berlin, second edition, 1993.

2191: 

2192: \bibitem{HornJohnson}

2193: Roger~A. Horn and Charles~R. Johnson.

2194: \newblock {\em Matrix analysis}.

2195: \newblock Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985.

2196: 

2197: \bibitem{Lasserre1}

2198: Jean~B. Lasserre.

2199: \newblock Global optimization with polynomials and the problem of moments.

2200: \newblock {\em SIAM J. Optim.}, 11(3):796--817, 2001.

2201: 

2202: \bibitem{Lasserre2}

2203: Jean~B. Lasserre.

2204: \newblock An explicit equivalent positive semidefinite program for nonlinear

2205:   {$0$}-{$1$} programs.

2206: \newblock {\em SIAM J. Optim.}, 12(3):756--769, 2002.

2207: 

2208: \bibitem{Lasserre3}

2209: Jean~B. Lasserre.

2210: \newblock Convex sets with semidefinite representation.

2211: \newblock {\em Math. Program.}, 120:457--477, 2009.

2212: 

2213: \bibitem{LaLauRos}

2214: Jean~B. Lasserre, Monique Laurent, and Philipp Rostalski.

2215: \newblock Semidefinite characterization and computation of zero- dimensional

2216:   real radical ideals.

2217: \newblock {\em Found. Comput. Math.}, 8(5):607--647, 2008.

2218: 

2219: \bibitem{LaurentComparisonpaper}

2220: Monique Laurent.

2221: \newblock A comparison of the {S}herali-{A}dams, {L}ov\'asz-{S}chrijver, and

2222:   {L}asserre relaxations for 0-1 programming.

2223: \newblock {\em Math. Oper. Res.}, 28(3):470--496, 2003.

2224: 

2225: \bibitem{Laurent}

2226: Monique Laurent.

2227: \newblock Semidefinite representations for finite varieties.

2228: \newblock {\em Math. Program.}, 109(1, Ser. A):1--26, 2007.

2229: 

2230: \bibitem{LaurentSosSurvey}

2231: Monique Laurent.

2232: \newblock Sums of squares, moment matrices and optimization over polynomials.

2233: \newblock In {\em Emerging Applications of Algebraic Geometry}, volume 149 of

2234:   {\em IMA Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications}. Springer, 2009.

2235: 

2236: \bibitem{LaurentRendl}

2237: Monique Laurent and Franz Rendl.

2238: \newblock Semidefinite programming and integer programming.

2239: \newblock In Karen Aardal, George Nemhauser, and Robert Weismantel, editors,

2240:   {\em Handbook on Discrete Optimization}, pages 393--514. Elsevier B.V., 2005.

2241: 

2242: \bibitem{ShannonCapacity}

2243: L{\'a}szl{\'o} Lov{\'a}sz.

2244: \newblock On the {S}hannon capacity of a graph.

2245: \newblock {\em IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory}, 25(1):1--7, 1979.

2246: 

2247: \bibitem{LovaszStablesetsPolynomials}

2248: L{\'a}szl{\'o} Lov{\'a}sz.

2249: \newblock Stable sets and polynomials.

2250: \newblock {\em Discrete Math.}, 124(1-3):137--153, 1994.

2251: \newblock Graphs and combinatorics (Qawra, 1990).

2252: 

2253: \bibitem{Lovasz}

2254: L{\'a}szl{\'o} Lov{\'a}sz.

2255: \newblock Semidefinite programs and combinatorial optimization.

2256: \newblock In {\em Recent advances in algorithms and combinatorics}, volume~11

2257:   of {\em CMS Books Math./Ouvrages Math. SMC}, pages 137--194. Springer, New

2258:   York, 2003.

2259: 

2260: \bibitem{LovaszSchrijver91}

2261: L{\'a}szl{\'o} Lov{\'a}sz and Alexander Schrijver.

2262: \newblock Cones of matrices and set-functions and {$0$}-{$1$} optimization.

2263: \newblock {\em SIAM J. Optim.}, 1(2):166--190, 1991.

2264: 

2265: \bibitem{MarshallBook}

2266: Murray Marshall.

2267: \newblock {\em Positive polynomials and sums of squares}, volume 146 of {\em

2268:   Mathematical Surveys and Monographs}.

2269: \newblock American Math Society, Providence, RI, 2008.

2270: 

2271: \bibitem{Parrilo:phd}

2272: Pablo~A. Parrilo.

2273: \newblock {\em Structured semidefinite programs and semialgebraic geometry

2274:   methods in robustness and optimization}.

2275: \newblock PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology, May 2000.

2276: \newblock Available at

2277:   \url{http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechETD:etd-05062004-055516}.

2278: 

2279: \bibitem{parrilo}

2280: Pablo~A. Parrilo.

2281: \newblock An explicit construction of distinguished representations of

2282:   polynomials nonnegative over finite sets.

2283: \newblock IfA Tech. Report AUT02-02, ETH Zurich, 2002.

2284: 

2285: \bibitem{Parrilo:spr}

2286: Pablo~A. Parrilo.

2287: \newblock Semidefinite programming relaxations for semialgebraic problems.

2288: \newblock {\em Math. Prog.}, 96(2, Ser. B):293--320, 2003.

2289: 

2290: \bibitem{SOSstructbook}

2291: Pablo~A. Parrilo.

2292: \newblock Exploiting algebraic structure in sum of squares programs.

2293: \newblock In D.~Henrion and A.~Garulli, editors, {\em Positive Polynomials in

2294:   Control}, volume 312 of {\em Lecture Notes in Control and Information

2295:   Sciences}. Springer, 2005.

2296: 

2297: \bibitem{PowSchei}

2298: Victoria Powers and Claus Scheiderer.

2299: \newblock The moment problem for non-compact semialgebraic sets.

2300: \newblock {\em Adv. Geom.}, 1(1):71--88, 2001.

2301: 

2302: \bibitem{Schoenebeck}

2303: Grant Schoenebeck.

2304: \newblock Linear level lasserre lower bounds for certain k-csps.

2305: \newblock In {\em FOCS}, pages 593--602. IEEE Computer Society, 2008.

2306: 

2307: \bibitem{Sch}

2308: Alexander Schrijver.

2309: \newblock {\em Theory of Linear and Integer Programming}.

2310: \newblock Wiley-Interscience Series in Discrete Mathematics and Optimization,

2311:   New York, 1986.

2312: 

2313: \bibitem{SchrijverB}

2314: Alexander Schrijver.

2315: \newblock {\em Combinatorial optimization. {P}olyhedra and efficiency. {V}ol.

2316:   {B}}, volume~24 of {\em Algorithms and Combinatorics}.

2317: \newblock Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003.

2318: \newblock Matroids, trees, stable sets, Chapters 39--69.

2319: 

2320: \bibitem{BruceShepherd}

2321: F.~Bruce Shepherd.

2322: \newblock The theta body and imperfection.

2323: \newblock In {\em Perfect graphs}, Wiley-Intersci. Ser. Discrete Math. Optim.,

2324:   pages 261--291. Wiley, Chichester, 2001.

2325: 

2326: \bibitem{StanleyCompressed}

2327: Richard~P. Stanley.

2328: \newblock Decompositions of rational convex polytopes.

2329: \newblock {\em Ann. Discrete Math.}, 6:333--342, 1980.

2330: \newblock Combinatorial mathematics, optimal designs and their applications

2331:   (Proc. Sympos. Combin. Math. and Optimal Design, Colorado State Univ., Fort

2332:   Collins, Colo., 1978).

2333: 

2334: \bibitem{Sullivant}

2335: Seth Sullivant.

2336: \newblock Compressed polytopes and statistical disclosure limitation.

2337: \newblock {\em Tohoku Math. J. (2)}, 58(3):433--445, 2006.

2338: 

2339: \bibitem{BoydVandenberghe}

2340: Lieven Vandenberghe and Stephen Boyd.

2341: \newblock Semidefinite programming.

2342: \newblock {\em SIAM Rev.}, 38(1):49--95, 1996.

2343: 

2344: \end{thebibliography}

2345: 

2346: \end{document}

2347: