Maximum a posteriori inference in a finite Markov random field is generally NP-hard. We study an instance-wise optimizer that minimizes the exact multilinear energy under product marginals. The canonical parameterization adds a GNN output to free per-node logits. This residual bypass is a global change of coordinates, so the lifting preserves the infimum, critical points, local extrema (modulo the GNN-parameter fiber), and Hessian inertia of the free-logit problem. Joint gradient flow then induces the preconditioner I+JJ⊤: the GNN cannot enlarge the feasible set, but it can add dissipation ∥J⊤∇ℓ∥22. For a two-layer branch this extra coupling is four-hop local. We also show that every finite critical point of a nonconstant multilinear objective is a saddle, and that a unique MAP gap Γ makes conditional-expectation rounding exact once the relaxed gap falls below Γ; residual gradient flow and joint gradient descent then obey explicit O(1/t) and O(1/k) rates in a small-gap region, with an improved bound under residual alignment. Experiments on synthetic MRFs, UAI 2022 benchmarks, and Physical Cell Identity (PCI) problems evaluate this residual geometry at scale.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Residual ReMAP is an optimizer for one instance. The factor energy supplies the loss; the free-logit bypass preserves every search direction; the GNN supplies an adaptive graph-structured geometry. Conditional-expectation rounding converts every relaxed iterate into a no-worse discrete incumbent.
Graph
#Nodes/#Edges
LBP
TRBP
Toulbar2
ReMAP
P_potts_1
1k/7591
−22215.700
−21365.800
−22646.529
−21451.025
P_potts_5
50k/249624
25668.500
35389.000
12468.172
11466.507
P_random_1
1k/7540
−4901.100
−4505.020
−4900.759
−4564.763
P_random_5
50k/249374
12478.300
13337.000
12835.994
11750.969
Table 1: Representative pairwise synthetic instances. Discrete energy; lower is better. ReMAP is the best of five seeds. Full best-of-five and mean ± std tables are Table 6 and Table 7 in Appendix F . Best in bold.
Graph
#Nodes/#Cliques
Toulbar2
SRMP
ReMAP
Energy
Loss
H_Instances_1
500/41253
NA
−5785.093
−7866.214±389.207
−7859.68±393.719
H_Instances_2
500/57934
NA
−18504.788
−20260.289±143.276
−20286.571±143.624
H_Instances_3
1000/36993
NA
−5903.131
−7232.648±337.393
−7229.483±336.218
Table 2: Synthetic high-order MRFs. Energy values; lower is better. “NA”: no solution within the time limit. Best in bold.
Graph
#Nodes/#Edges
LBP
TRBP
Toulbar2
ReMAP
Energy
Loss
PCI_1
30/165
20.344
20.455
18.134
18.372±0.161
18.373±0.160
PCI_2
40/311
98.364
98.762
98.364
98.555±0.109
98.555±0.109
PCI_3
80/1522
1003.640
1003.640
1003.640
1003.640±0.0
1003.639±0.0
PCI_4
286/10714
585.977
585.977
426.806
410.945±2.009
410.996±2.014
PCI_5
929/29009
1591.590
1591.590
1118.097
1074.617±5.501
1074.676±5.503
Table 3: Real PCI instances. Energy values; lower is better. Best in bold.
Instance
#Nodes/#Edges
Residual u+ρv
GNN-only ρv
Free logits u
PCI_1
30/165
18.372±0.161
18.399±0.151
18.773±0.000
PCI_2
40/311
98.555±0.109
98.733±0.159
98.874±0.000
PCI_3
80/1522
1003.640±0.000
1004.789±1.241
1003.640±0.000
PCI_4
286/10714
410.945±2.009
413.458±5.166
448.274±0.000
PCI_5
929/29009
1074.617±5.501
1092.796±13.663
1286.412±0.000
Table 4: Parameterization ablation on the five real PCI instances. Discrete energy (mean ± std over five seeds); lower is better.
Appendix figures & tables19 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Use
Variables/factors
Search parameterization
Decoding
Nonconvex MAP relaxation ( Lê-Huu and Paragios, 2018 )
Per instance
Categorical; arbitrary order
Free product-simplex variables; multilinear
Guaranteed non-increasing block rounding
PI-GNN ( Schuetz et al., 2022 )
Per instance
Primarily binary QUBO / polynomial
GNN optimizing a relaxed Hamiltonian
Projection to a discrete assignment
SSMP ( Arya et al., 2024b )
Amortized + refinement
General PGM / MPE queries
Neural query predictor with self-supervised refinement
Free logits plus a GNN residual on the multilinear energy
Conditional-expectation rounding
Appendix
Table 5: Methodological positioning. “Per instance” means that optimization variables are fitted for the test instance.
Figure 2: This illustrates the padding procedure for unary loss terms ϕ(x) and clique loss terms ψ(xi,xj,xk) , with ∣X∣=5 . xmax denotes the variable that has the maximum value range. The elements shown in purple represent the energy values in the original ϕ and ψ . After padding, the dimension of vector ϕ , as well as each dimension of the energy tensor ψ(xi,xj,xk) , will be 5. Orange entries are a layout placeholder (implementation: max(ϕ) or max(ψ) ); after −∞ masking they do not enter F(p) .
Graph
#Nodes/#Edges
LBP
TRBP
Toulbar2
ReMAP
Graph
#Nodes/#Edges
LBP
TRBP
Toulbar2
ReMAP
P_potts_1
1k/7591
-22215.700
-21365.800
-22646.529
-21451.025
P_random_1
1k/7540
-4901.100
-4505.020
-4900.759
-4564.763
P_potts_2
5k/37439
-111319.000
-105848.000
-110022.248
-105952.531
P_random_2
5k/37488
-24059.900
-22934.000
-24139.194
-21834.693
P_potts_3
10k/75098
-221567.000
-210570.000
-218311.424
-209925.269
P_random_3
10k/74518
-47873.200
-47002.000
-48107.172
-42120.325
P_potts_4
50k/248695
12411.200
13454.600
12955.129
11679.429
P_random_4
50k/249554
12881.500
14342.300
12233.890
11769.934
P_potts_5
50k/249624
25668.500
35389.000
12468.172
11466.507
P_random_5
50k/249374
12478.300
13337.000
12835.994
11750.969
P_potts_6
50k/300181
17609.800
17362.600
17635.791
16756.999
P_random_6
50k/299601
16723.600
16754.500
18031.964
16700.674
Appendix
Table 6: Full pairwise synthetic results. Discrete energy; lower is better. ReMAP is the best energy over five seeds. The four-row excerpt in the main text is Table 1 . Best in bold.
Graph
#Nodes/#Edges
LBP
TRBP
Toulbar2
ReMAP
Energy
Loss
P_potts_1
1k/7591
-22215.700
-21365.800
-22646.529
-21791.868 ± 218.106
-21799.268 ± 216.075
P_potts_2
5k/37439
-111319.000
-105848.000
-110022.248
-105762.092 ± 434.674
-106016.855 ± 168.861
P_potts_3
10k/75098
-221567.000
-210570.000
-218311.424
-211406.914 ± 1489.099
-210182.681 ± 275.164
P_potts_4
50k/248695
12411.200
13454.600
12955.129
12219.817 ± 538.969
11811.682 ± 123.877
P_potts_5
50k/249624
25668.500
35389.000
12468.172
12010.036 ± 266.610
11673.708 ± 146.513
Appendix
Table 7: Pairwise synthetic instances, same five trials as Table 6 . ReMAP Energy and Loss are mean ± std. Energy is the decoded discrete energy; Loss is the relaxed multilinear objective. Lower is better.
Graph
#Nodes/#Edges
LBP
TRBP
Toulbar2
ReMAP
Energy
Loss
ProteinFolding_11
400/7160
-3106.080
-3079.030
-4461.047
-3976.908 ± 52.047
-4018.784 ± 36.491
ProteinFolding_12
250/1848
3570.210
3604.240
3562.387(opt)
16137.682 ± 16.020
16090.801 ± 22.869
Grids_19
1600/3200
-2250.440
-2103.610
-2643.107
-2400.251 ± 20.061
-2398.078 ± 16.010
Grids_21
1600/3200
-13119.300
-12523.300
-18895.393
-16592.926 ± 94.368
-16605.564 ± 113.096
Grids_24
1600/3120
-13210.400
-13260.900
-18274.302
-16323.767 ± 171.950
-16222.104 ± 222.593
Appendix
Table 8: Results on the UAI inference competition 2022. Numbers correspond to the obtained energy values. Best in bold.“opt” denotes it is the optimal solution.
Table 9: Results on high-order cases of the UAI inference competition 2022. Numbers correspond to the obtained energy values. Best in bold.
Graph
#Nodes/#Edges
dim=64
dim=512
dim=1024
dim=4096
dim=8192
ProteinFolding_11
400/7160
-3892.949
-3886.701
-3946.168
-4065.294
-4003.323
ProteinFolding_12
250/1848
16064.795
16068.406
16051.798
16088.073
16071.324
Grids_19
1600/3200
-2355.159
-2404.975
-2337.281
-2341.2746
-2373.618
Grids_21
1600/3200
-16478.466
-16169.0320
-16446.410
-16209.017
-16278.668
Grids_24
1600/3120
-16008.008
-15900.249
-15841.799
-15608.162
-15948.219
Grids_25
1600/3120
-2343.547
-2353.223
-2319.899
-2306.686
-2288.182
Appendix
Table 10: Full results on the UAI inference competition 2022 of ReMAP with different feature dimensions. Numbers correspond to the obtained energy values.
Figure 3: The loss curves of the Segmentation_14, P_potts_6 and P_potts_8 from pairwise potts synthetic problems.
Figure 4: The landscape of instance Segmentation_19. From left to right, the columns correspond to networks with K∈{1,2,5,8} layers. The first row is the landscape range from [−10,+10] for both δ and η direction. The second row is the landscape range from [−1,+1] for both δ and η direction.
Figure 5: The average loss curves over UAI inference competition 2022 pairwise cases, PCI instances and synthetic instances using GraphSAGE, GCN and GAT as the GNN backbones.
Figure 6: The average loss curves over UAI inference competition 2022 pairwise cases using different optimizers.
Figure 7: The training loss of instance Segmentation_19 after convergence of using network layer number {1,2,5,8} .
Instances
Algorithm/Solver
200s
400s
600s
800s
1000s
1200s
PCI_1
Toulbar2
18.134
-
-
-
-
-
ReMAP
18.211 (10s in total)
-
-
-
-
-
PCI_2
Toulbar2
98.364
-
-
-
-
-
ReMAP
98.446 (16s in total)
-
-
-
-
-
PCI_3
Toulbar2
1003.640
-
-
-
-
-
ReMAP
1003.640 (71s in total)
-
-
-
-
-
Appendix
Table 12: Time comparison between Toulbar2 and ReMAP on PCI instances. “-” if the solving process is already stopped.
Figure 8: Wall-clock convergence time of ReMAP on grid graphs from 52 to 502 nodes. Each size is repeated five times. Convergence is a relative loss change below 10−4 .
This paper develops on algebraic grounds a polynomial time exact linear solution to the hard combinatorial problem of marginal inference in Markov random field (MRF) models under general assumptions. To prove our claim, we first implicitly remodel a MRF joint distribution as the unique solution of some linear identity assuming its clique potential functions (equivalently, its individual conditional distributions) to be specified. Then, by assuming an arbitrary point subset, we relax accordingly such a (global) linear identity for deriving a second linear identity, solely, acting on a polynomial time number of entries (e.g.; local marginals or Fourier frequencies) of a solution. Then, we show, only using linear algebraic techniques, that such an identity enables to capture all the entries necessary for the exact reconstruction of an MRF marginal distribution, thus, allowing to solve for the latter, exactly and in polynomial time, using a standard linear solver. Last, but not least, this paper probably solves, once and for all, the P = NP conjecture.
Ikhlef Bechar
Aix Marseille Univ, Universit´e de Toulon, CNRS, ENSAM, LSIS La Garde 83957, France
The analogy between deep neural network forward passes and renormalization group (RG) flows has been repeatedly noted in the literature, but existing treatments remain qualitative: depth is described as a coarse-graining scale, attention is likened to a partition function, and representations are said to flow toward fixed points. No existing work has defined a measurable RG order parameter, tested it under controlled variation of the input distribution, or made quantitative predictions that are empirically verified. We study the simplest architecture for which the analogy is tractable: a pure MLP residual stack trained on masked token prediction over synthetic Markov chain sequences with known spectral properties. We report three findings. (i) The effective rank of the residual stream decreases monotonically with depth after training, consistent with progressive integration of irrelevant degrees of freedom. (ii) This rank collapse is selective: it occurs for chains with short correlation length approximately 1 but is absent for chains with long correlation length approximately 7, measured at the position level to control for mean-pooling artifacts. The network preserves exactly the degrees of freedom relevant to the prediction task, the content of the RG relevance criterion. (iii) Inter-layer kernel drift is concentrated at one or two specific transitions, with the remainder of the network near a fixed point, consistent with a discrete fixed-point plateau. Together these findings constitute the first quantitative, position-level evidence that MLP residual networks implement a selective coarse-graining procedure governed by the spectral structure of the input distribution.
Parviz Haggi-Mani, Irina Rish
Universit´e de Montr´eal · Mila - Quebec AI Institute
Inferring network topology from noisy node observations is a central problem in graph signal processing. In this paper, we consider Laplacian-constrained graph estimation for Gaussian Markov random fields, focusing on the underdetermined regime in which the number of samples is smaller than the number of graph nodes. Existing approaches often formulate the problem as a sparsity-regularized maximum-likelihood estimation problem. While effective, such methods typically require iterative optimization and are often computationally demanding, particularly under Laplacian constraints. Instead, we propose a non-iterative estimator of graph Laplacians that uses effective resistance for regularization, and evaluate the method using a simple sparsification procedure. Experiments show that with some trade-off in edge and weight recovery on the considered dataset, computational cost for moderately sized graphs can be substantially reduced.
Christoffer Kjellson, Claudio Altafini, Emma Tegling
Department of Automatic Control, Lund University · ELLIIT Strategic Research Area · Division of Automatic Control, Department of Electrical Engineering, Linköping University