Graph Coarsening Enables Escaping Local Optima in Compute-Constrained Nonconvex MAX-CUT
Authors: M. Harper Langston, Pierre-David Letourneau, Dalton Jones, Harris Teague, Peter Scott, Mingu Lee, Richard Lethin, Chris Lott, Roland Memisevic, Fatih Porikli
Because its binary optimization landscape contains exponentially many local optima, MAX-CUT is highly sensitive to initialization. We study Particle Polynomial Relaxation (PPR), a moment-based nonconvex continuous reformulation possessing an advantageous optimization landscape. We warm-start PPR with Combinatorial Multigrid (CMG), a spectral graph-coarsening method that produces structure-aware initial solutions in near-linear time without training data. On t2g20 (n=400), benchmark instance with known exact optimum, the combined CMG+PPR pipeline reaches 97.5% of optimum on average and 98.4% on the best run. An extended variant with discrete local-search refinement reaches the published optimum on all sixty Biq Mac instances evaluated by a recent neural branch-and-bound method. Using a sparse CSR representation, the same approach scales to G-set instances with up to 20,000 vertices reducing memory requirements by up to 3333× while maintaining a consistent improvement over the CMG warm start. Gains are largest on sparse weighted graphs; on dense graphs we complement the pipeline with spectral sparsification.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Schematic comparison of random and structure-aware initialization. Left: random restarts are likely to terminate in different local optima of the flip landscape. Center: CMG coarsening summarizes the graph into larger structural units and returns a warm start. Right: PPR is then initialized in that basin and can make multi-node moves that are inaccessible to one-bit local search.
Family
n
CMG
P-16, R=1
P-32,8
Notes
t3g5
125
0.828
0.883
0.978
3-D toroidal
t2g20
400
0.830
0.832
0.907
2-D toroidal
Reference:
0.878
GW guarantee
g05_60
60
0.963
0.963
0.963
Expander (5/10); CMG already strong
Table 1: S-S → CMG → PPR, mean cut/OPT ratio over three seeds vs. known optima ( Rendl et al., 2010 ) ; g05_60 here is a 5-instance subset of the family, vs. the full 10-instance mean in Table 2 . P-32,8 denotes L=32,R=8 .
Ours (heuristic)
( Chen et al., 2026 ) B&B (s)
Family
n
CMG
Pipeline
time (s)
Vanilla (s)
Neural (s)
g05_60
60
0.975
1.000
23.9
53
9.5
g05_80
80
0.977
1.000
63.8
1170
156
g05_100
100
0.982
1.000
130.5
40930
4509
pm1s_80
80
0.817
1.000
8.5
610
81
pm1s_100
100
0.818
1.000
13.7
10382
1058
Table 2: 10 instances chosen from the 6 Biq Mac families ( Chen et al., 2026 ) ; full pipeline matches all 60 published optimum. Mean single-core per-instance wall clock used for timing comparisons; B&B times from ( Chen et al., 2026 ) , Tab. 3 .
Instance
n
mem
cmg
2opt
Δ2opt
final
Δfinal
ratio-to-OPT (2opt/final)
G57
5000
833.3 ×
2600
3142
1.208
3460
1.331
–
G67
10000
1666.7 ×
5198
6258
1.204
6872
1.322
–
G77
14000
2333.3 ×
7454
9022
1.211
9810
1.316
0.908 / 0.9869
G81
20000
3333.3 ×
10574
12626
1.194
13922
1.317
0.898 / 0.9902
Table 3: Sparse CSR path, four of six G-set instances, single core. “mem”: dense/CSR storage ratio. “2opt”: cut after CMG → PPR → 2-opt only, with its own gain over CMG, Δ2opt (this is the configuration the pipeline name describes). “final”: cut after also appending the retuned discrete tail of Table 14 (KL/3-opt/GA/ILS), with Δfinal . ratio-to-OPT given at both stages, only where an externally verified optimum exists.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Strategy
Cut
Ratio
Time
Random-init PPR, best of 21
37
0.974
21×∼7 s
Random-init PPR, exact hits
0/21
–
–
CMG + flip
38
1.000
30μ s
CMG → PPR warm start
38
1.000
∼ 12s
Appendix
Table 4: Hard instance n=15 , seed =44 , known optimum 38 . “CMG” means CMG followed by local-flip refinement.
Figure 2: The composed pipeline: S-S sparsification (no-op if already sparse) feeds CMG coarsening to a directly-solvable coarsest level; the coarsest solution is projected back up with local-flip refinement; PPR then runs, warm-started from that projection, on the finest graph, followed by multi-pass restarts and a single closing 2-opt sweep.
Component
Count
Notes
Particle locations and weights
O(LnR)
linear in n for fixed L,R
GW SDP variables
O(n2)
quadratic in n
Lasserre level k SDP
O((nn+2k)2)
grows rapidly with n
Appendix
Table 5: Variable-count scaling for PPR-MAX-CUT and standard relaxations.
Figure 3: Leverage-score distributions. Uniform-weight graphs have nearly flat leverage scores, while weighted structured graphs can have skewed scores that make sparsification useful.
Figure 4: CMG coarsening effectiveness versus graph density. Sparse structured graphs contract aggressively, while dense uniform graphs contract weakly.
Graph
Seed
OPT
CMG+Flip
Exact
ADMM
Exact
SQP
Exact
random-15
42
39
37
N
36
N
39
Y
random-15
44
38
38
Y
37
N
38
Y
random-20
43
62
62
Y
61
N
62
Y
random-20
44
70
65
N
65
N
69
N
planted-30-200
42-44
(exact)
exact
Y
exact
Y
exact
Y
Typical wall time
<1 ms
5-39 s
2-19 s
Appendix
Table 6: Coarse sweet-spot ( nℓ≤20 ) solver comparison, three seeds per size. “Exact” marks a cut matching the known or brute-force optimum.
Configuration
Mean
Best seed
CMG baseline
0.832
–
5-pass PPR
0.952
0.968
2-opt after every pass
0.957
0.970
5-pass + single closing 2-opt
0.975
0.984
GW guarantee
0.878
–
Appendix
Table 7: t2g20 ( n=400 ) configuration ladder, mean cut/OPT over three seeds. The first, second, and fourth rows are the cumulative ladder plotted in Figure 5 ; the third is the competing 2-opt after every pass configuration, which branches off pass 1 rather than extending the ladder and finishes 1.8 points behind.
Figure 5: Progressive improvement on t2g20 ( n=400 ) across the cumulative stage ladder, mean over three seeds. The CMG warm start opens at 0.832 ; five PPR passes carry it to 0.952 ; a single closing 2-opt sweep gives the 0.975 headline of Table 7 ; and the discrete tail (KL, 3-opt, 200 -restart, memetic GA) closes to 0.994 . Every stage shown here is applied on top of the previous one. The competing 2-opt after every pass configuration is deliberately absent: it branches off pass 1 rather than extending the ladder, and is reported in Table 7 above and per-instance in Table 10 .
Figure 6: Ratio to known optimum versus pass number on t2g20 ( n=400 ), L=128 , R=32 , k=40 . Pass 2 yields the largest single gain ( +0.014 ); the curve is essentially flat from pass 5 onward. Read against Table 9 , where quadrupling the restart count buys only +0.004 in total: it is the multi-pass schedule, not raw restart breadth, that escapes the warm-start basin.
(a) Sparse scaling on six G-set instances, n=5000 - 20,000 (a superset of the four shown in Table 3 , which omits G65 and G66 ). Memory savings grow linearly with n , exceeding 3300× at n=20,000 . The right-hand panel shows the gain over the CMG warm start at both pipeline stages: the continuous-relaxation path alone (CMG → PPR → 2-opt, blue) holds a tight 1.194 - 1.212× band, and appending the discrete tail (KL/3-opt/GA/ILS, red) carries this to 1.316 - 1.331× ; neither band decays at the largest instance. Both panels are plotted against a common n axis; the right-hand panel’s vertical axis is anchored at 1.0 , the no-gain line, so that the flatness of the bands is not exaggerated by a magnified scale.
Exact solution of hard combinatorial optimization problems often relies on strong convex relaxations, but solving these relaxations repeatedly inside a branch-and-bound algorithm can be prohibitively expensive. Hence, we consider this challenge for Max-Cut, where branch and bound commonly uses semidefinite programming (SDP) relaxations to bound subproblems. We propose a Max-Cut-specific graph neural network that serves as a principled, lightweight neural proxy for these SDP solvers and can be plugged directly into an exact branch-and-bound framework. The proposed architecture has update steps of complexity O(n2+ne), and predicts both primal- and dual-feasible SDP solutions. The primal SDP solutions yield feasible Max-Cut solutions via the Goemans--Williamson algorithm. In addition, it is trained in a self-supervised fashion without requiring solved SDP relaxations as labels. Empirically, we show that our architecture can substantially reduce the cost of bounding in exact Max-Cut solving by up to 10.6× compared with using the state-of-the-art SDP solver Mosek. Our work highlights the potential of learned, validity-preserving surrogates for accelerating exact optimization over structured convex relaxations.
Hao Chen, Chendi Qian, Christopher Morris +2
1Davidson School of Chemical Engineering, Purdue University · Faculty of Computer Science, RWTH Aachen University · 3Jacobs Technion-Cornell Institute, Cornell Tech
The maximum independent set (MIS) problem is a fundamental NP-hard combinatorial optimization problem with applications in scheduling, resource allocation, and network analysis. Exact solvers can provide high-quality solutions or optimality certificates, but their computational cost grows rapidly with graph size, while hand-crafted heuristics improve scalability at the expense of guarantees. Learning-based methods offer an alternative by exploiting structural patterns across graph instances, yet directly predicting independent sets can make global coordination difficult on large graphs. We instead use learning to guide multilevel graph coarsening while retaining combinatorial search for final decision making. Our Dual-GNN Multilevel Coarsening framework uses a Partition GNN to score candidate contractions and a Representative GNN to select top-k local independent-set states for each final cluster. Experiments on Erdős--Rényi graphs with up to 2,000 vertices demonstrate a favorable quality--runtime trade-off. On 500-vertex instances with certified optima, our method achieves an average independent-set size of 19.20, corresponding to 99.5% of the optimal value of 19.30, while reducing the mean wall-clock time from 643.57 seconds for exact solving to 3.41 seconds, yielding an approximately 189× speedup. On larger graphs with 1,000 and 2,000 vertices, our method achieves the best mean solution quality among all evaluated methods. Moreover, although trained only on Erdős--Rényi graphs with edge probability p=0.35, the learned coarsening policy generalizes effectively across both unseen graph densities and structurally different graph families.
Tianfeng Chen, Xianyue Li
School of Mathematics and Statistics Lanzhou University
We present an accelerated relax-and-round algorithm for concave coverage problems, which generalize the classic maximum coverage problem. Building on the relax-and-round framework of Barman et al. [STACS 2021], we propose two significant improvements. First, we replace the linear programming (LP) relaxation step with a projected accelerated gradient method applied to a smooth surrogate objective to achieve a O(mnε−1) running time. Second, we use a specialized rounding scheme for the hypersimplex that combines the Carathéodory decomposition algorithm in Karalias et al. [NeurIPS 2025] with randomized swap rounding of Chekuri et al. [FOCS 2010]. We prove tight approximation ratios for new reward functions, including a 0.827-approximation for the logarithmic reward φ(x)=log(1+x). Finally, we conduct maximum multi-coverage experiments on synthetic and real-world graphs, demonstrating that our algorithm outperforms approaches that use state-of-the-art LP solvers.
Matthew Fahrbach, Mehraneh Liaee, Morteza Zadimoghaddam