Abstract
In convex integer programming, various procedures have been developed to strengthen convex relaxations of sets of integer points. On the one hand, there exist several generalpurpose methods that strengthen relaxations without specific knowledge of the set S of feasible integer points, such as popular linear programming or semidefinite programming hierarchies. On the other hand, various methods have been designed for obtaining strengthened relaxations for very specific sets S that arise in combinatorial optimization. We propose a new efficient method that interpolates between these two approaches. Our procedure strengthens any convex set containing a set \( S \subseteq \{0,1\}^n \) by exploiting certain additional information about S. Namely, the required extra information will be in the form of a Boolean formula \(\phi \) defining the target set S. The new relaxation is obtained by “feeding” the convex set into the formula \(\phi \). We analyze various aspects regarding the strength of our procedure. As one application, interpreting an iterated application of our procedure as a hierarchy, our findings simplify, improve, and extend previous results by Bienstock and Zuckerberg on covering problems.
Introduction
In convex integer programming, there exist various procedures to strengthen convex relaxations of sets of integer points. Formally, given a set \( S \subseteq {\mathbb {Z}}^n \) of integer points and a convex set \( Q \subseteq {\mathbb {R}}^n \) with \( Q \cap {\mathbb {Z}}^n = S \), these methods aim to construct a new convex set f(Q) satisfying \( S \subseteq f(Q) \subseteq Q \).
On the one hand, there exist several generalpurpose methods that strengthen relaxations without specific knowledge of the set S, in a systematic way. The hierarchies of Sherali and Adams [27], Lovász and Schrijver [21], and Lasserre [20], which are tailored to 0/1sets \( S \subseteq \{0,1\}^n \), are methods of this type.
On the other hand, various methods have been designed for obtaining strengthened relaxations for specific sets S. Such methods include, as an example, an impressive collection of families of valid inequalities of the traveling salesperson polytope that strengthen the classical subtour elimination formulation. Similar research has been performed for many other polytopes arising in combinatorial optimization, such as stable set polytopes and knapsack polytopes.
In this work, we propose a new method that interpolates between the two approaches described above. We design a procedure to strengthen any convex set \( Q \subseteq {\mathbb {R}}^n \) containing a set \( S \subseteq \{0,1\}^n \) by exploiting certain additional information about S. Namely, the required extra information will be in the form of a Boolean formula \( \phi \) defining the target set S. Instead of viewing a Boolean formula as taking 0/1vectors as input, the improved relaxation is obtained by “feeding” the convex set Q into the formula \( \phi \), and will be denoted by \( \phi (Q) \).
While the formula \( \phi \) has to be provided as a further input, for certain problems, there is an “obvious” candidate for \(\phi \). For example, suppose that the set S arises from a 0/1covering problem. That is, it is given by a matrix \( A \in \{0,1\}^{m \times n} \) such that \( S = \{ x \in \{0,1\}^n : Ax \geqslant \mathbf {1} \} \), where \( \mathbf {1} \) is the allones vector. Then S can be equivalently specified by the following Boolean formula in conjunctive normal form
In addition, there is a vast literature on representing sets of 0/1points via Boolean formulas, and we are free to use any of these formulas for our procedure.
An important property of \( \phi (Q) \) is that it can be described by an extended formulation whose size is bounded by the size of the formula \( \phi \) times the size of an extended formulation defining the input relaxation Q. Recall that an extended formulation of size m of a polytope P is determined by matrices \( T \in {\mathbb {R}}^{n \times d} \), \( A \in {\mathbb {R}}^{m \times d} \) and vectors \( t \in {\mathbb {R}}^n \), \( b \in {\mathbb {R}}^m \) such that \( P = \{ x \in {\mathbb {R}}^n : \exists y \in {\mathbb {R}}^d : Ay \geqslant b, \, x = Ty + t\} \). Therefore, provided that \(\phi \) has polynomial size, our procedure is efficient in the sense that a small extended formulation for Q can be converted into a small extended formulation for \(\phi (Q)\) in polynomial time.
To illustrate, the wellstudied procedure [10] that maps a relaxation Q to its ChvátalGomory closure f(Q) is not efficient in the above sense (this is to be expected since determining membership in f(Q) is \(\mathsf {NP}\)complete [12]). A striking example is given by choosing Q as the fractional matching polytope [26, Section 30.2]. In this case, the ChvátalGomory closure f(Q) is the matching polytope. It was recently shown by Rothvoß that all extended formulations of the matching polytope have exponential size [25].
Another property of our procedure is that it is complete in the sense that iterating it a finite number of times (in fact, at most n times) always yields the convex hull of S. Furthermore, our procedure can be applied to any convex set \( Q \subseteq [0,1]^n \) that contains the target set S. In particular, the set Q is even allowed to contain 0/1points that do not belong to S. As an example, we can always apply our method with \( Q = [0,1]^n \), and thus finding an initial relaxation for \({\text {conv}}(S)\) is never an issue. Intuitively, this is possible since the information of which points belong to S is stored in \( \phi \).
By viewing an iterated application of our procedure as a hierarchy, we obtain a significant simplification of the BienstockZuckerberg hierarchy [7]. This is a powerful hierarchy tailored to 0/1covering problems. However, one of its drawbacks is that the definition of the hierarchy is quite complicated. Prior to this work, it had been simplified by Mastrolilli [22] using a modification of the SheraliAdams hierarchy that is based on appropriately defined highdegree polynomials. Subsequent to our work, it has also been simplified by Bienstock and Zuckerberg [9] themselves. Despite the simplicity of our method, we obtain extended formulations whose size is often vastly smaller than those of Bienstock and Zuckerberg [7, 8] and Mastrolilli [22]. We discuss this in more detail in Sect. 6.
Another aspect of our work is that it should serve as a bridge between combinatorial optimization and circuit complexity. As a concrete example, our procedure yields a very simple proof that Rothvoß’ result [25] on the extension complexity of the matching polytope implies a seminal result of Raz and Wigderson [23, Theorem 4.1] on the size of monotone formulas required to describe the matching function. In the other direction, constructions of small formulas describing a set \( S \subseteq \{0,1\}^n \) can now be used to obtain small extended formulations for \({\text {conv}}(S)\). We give a few nontrivial examples of this in Sect. 5, but of course there are many more.
For readers familiar with circuit complexity, we mention that our work is inspired by a relatively unknown connection between KarchmerWigderson games [18] and nonnegative factorizations, pioneered by Hrubeš [17]. This connection was recently rediscovered by Göös, Jain and Watson [15] and exploited in [3]. As such, the proofs of the main properties of our hierarchy are also very short. Indeed, the proof of our main theorem can be regarded as a “polyhedral” KarchmerWigderson game, but no knowledge of communication complexity is required.
Paper Outline We start by describing our procedure to obtain \( \phi (Q) \) in Sect. 2. In Sect. 3, we introduce notions that allow us to quantify the strength of our relaxations. Our main results regarding properties of the set \( \phi (Q) \) are presented in Sect. 4. In Sect. 5, we discuss several applications of our method in detail. In Sect. 6 we compare our procedure to related work of Bienstock and Zuckerberg [7, 8] and Mastrolilli [22], and state some open problems.
Description of the procedure
In order to present the construction of the procedure, let us fix some notation concerning Boolean formulas. We consider formulas that are built out of input variables \( x_1,\dotsc ,x_n \), conjunctions \( \wedge \), disjunctions \( \vee \), and negations \( \lnot \) in the standard way. Here, we define the size^{Footnote 1} of a Boolean formula as the total number of occurrences of input variables. We denote by \(\phi \) the size of \(\phi \).
Given a Boolean formula \( \phi \), we can interpret it as a function from \( \{0,1\}^n \rightarrow \{0,1\} \) and for an input \( x = (x_1,\dotsc ,x_n) \in \{0,1\}^n \) we will denote its output by \( \phi (x) \). We say that the set \( S = \{ x \in \{0,1\}^n : \phi (x) = 1 \} \) is defined by \( \phi \). Two formulas are said to be equivalent if they define the same set.
We say that a formula is reduced if negations are only applied to input variables. Note that, by De Morgan’s laws, every Boolean formula can be brought into an equivalent reduced formula of the same size. As an example, the formulas
are equivalent and both have size 4, but only the second is in reduced form.
Below, we will repeatedly use the elementary fact that for every reduced formula \(\phi \) of size \(\phi \), one of the following holds:

\(\phi  = 1\) and either \(\phi = x_i\) or \(\phi = \lnot x_i\) for some \(i \in [n]\), or

\(\phi  \geqslant 2\) and \(\phi \) is either the conjuction or the disjunction of two reduced formulas \(\phi _1,\phi _2\) such that \( \phi  = \phi _1 + \phi _2 \).
This gives a way to represent any reduced Boolean formula as a rooted tree each of whose inner nodes is labeled with \(\wedge \) or \(\vee \) and each of whose leaves is labeled with a nonnegated variable \(x_i\) or a negated variable \(\lnot x_i\). Note that there may be many trees that represent the same reduced Boolean formula, but this will not matter. Observe that the size of a formula is the number of leaves in any one of its trees.
We are ready to describe our method to strengthen a convex relaxation of a given set of points in \( \{0,1\}^n \).
Definition 1
Let \( \phi \) be a reduced Boolean formula with input variables \( x_1,\dotsc ,x_n \) and let \( Q \subseteq [0,1]^n \) be any convex set.
The set \( \phi (Q) \subseteq {\mathbb {R}}^n \) is recursively constructed from the formula \( \phi \) as follows.

Replace any nonnegated input variable \( x_i \) by the set \( \{ x \in Q : x_i = 1 \} \).

Replace any negated input variable \( \lnot x_i \) by the set \( \{ x \in Q : x_i = 0 \} \).

Replace any conjuction \( \wedge \) of two sets by their intersection.

Replace any disjunction \( \vee \) of two sets by the convex hull of their union.
As an example, given any convex set \( Q \subseteq [0,1]^3 \) and the formula \( \phi _2 \) defined in (2), we have
In the remainder of this work, we will analyze several properties of \( \phi (Q) \). One simple observation will be that, if S is defined by \( \phi \) and \( S \subseteq Q \), then \( S \subseteq \phi (Q) \subseteq Q \). Furthermore, \( \phi (Q) \) is strictly contained in Q unless \( {\text {conv}}(S) = Q \). In order to quantify this improvement over Q, we will introduce useful measures in the next section.
Measuring the strength: pitch and notch
We now introduce two quantities that measure the strength of our procedure. To this end, note that for every linear inequality in variables \( x_1, \dotsc , x_n \) we can partition [n] into sets \( I^+, I^ \subseteq [n] \) (with \( I^+ \cup I^ = [n] \) and \( I^+ \cap I^ = \emptyset \)) such that the inequality can be written as
where \( c = (c_1,\dotsc ,c_n)^\intercal \in {\mathbb {R}}^n_{\ge 0} \) and \( \delta \in {\mathbb {R}}\). Since we will only consider the intersection of \( [0,1]^n \) with the set of points satisfying such an inequality, we are only interested in inequalities where \( \delta \geqslant 0 \). In this case, we call (3) an inequality in standard form.
The notch of an inequality in standard form is the smallest number \( \nu \) such that
holds for every \( J \subseteq [n] \) with \( J \geqslant \nu \), while its pitch is the smallest number \( p\) such that (4) holds for every \( J \subseteq {\text {supp}}(c) \) with \( J \geqslant p\). Note that the pitch of an inequality is at most its notch. For instance, the notch of the inequality \(x_1 + x_n \geqslant 1\) is \(n1\), while its pitch equals 1. Both quantities appear in the study of ChvátalGomory closures of polytopes in \( [0,1]^n \).
Intuitively, the notch of an inequality is related to how “deep” it cuts the 0/1cube. For simplicity, assume that \(I^ = \emptyset \), so that the origin minimizes the lefthand side of (3) over the cube. The notch of (3) is then the smallest number \( \nu \) such that no 0/1vector of Hamming weight \( \nu \) or more is cut by the inequality. A similar intuition applies to the pitch.
We extend the definition of notch from inequalities to sets of 0/1points as follows. The notch of a nonempty set \( S \subseteq \{0,1\}^n \), denoted \(\nu (S)\), is the largest notch of any inequality in standard form that is valid for S. It can be shown that \( \nu (S) \) is equal to the smallest number k such that every kdimensional face of \( [0,1]^n \) contains a point from S. This equivalent definition of notch^{Footnote 2} was introduced in [6]. The main result of [6] is that if S has bounded notch and \({\text {conv}}(S)\) has bounded facet coefficients, then every polytope \(Q \subseteq [0,1]^n\) whose set of 0/1points is S has bounded ChvátalGomory rank.
The term pitch was used by Bienstock and Zuckerberg [7], who defined it for monotone inequalities in standard form, that is, where \( I^ = \emptyset \). Bounded pitch inequalities are related to the ChvátalGomory closure as follows. Consider any constants \(\varepsilon > 0\) and \(\ell \in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\geqslant 1}\), and any relaxation \(Q := \{x \in [0,1]^n : Ax \geqslant b\}\) of a set \(S := Q \cap \{0,1\}^n\), with A, b nonnegative. Bienstock and Zuckerberg [8, Lemma 2.1] proved that adding all valid pitch\(p\) inequalities for \(p\leqslant \lceil \ell / \ln (1+\varepsilon ) \rceil = \Theta (\ell / \varepsilon )\) to the system defining Q gives a relaxation R that is a \((1+\varepsilon )\)approximation^{Footnote 3} of the \(\ell \)th ChvátalGomory closure of Q.
Main results
In this section, we prove several properties of the set \( \phi (Q) \). Let us start with the following simple observation.
Proposition 2
For every reduced Boolean formula \(\phi \) and every convex set \(Q \subseteq [0,1]^n\), the set \(\phi (Q)\) is a convex subset of Q. Moreover, \(\phi (Q)\) contains every point \(x \in \{0,1\}^n\) such that \(x \in Q\) and \(\phi (x) = 1\). In other words, \(\phi (Q)\) contains \(Q \cap \phi ^{1}(1)\).
Proof
The fact that \(\phi (Q)\) is a convex set contained in Q is clear, since \(\phi (Q)\) is constructed from faces of Q by taking intersections and convex hulls of unions.
We prove the second part by induction on the size of \(\phi \). If \(\phi  = 1\), then \(\phi \) is either \(\phi = x_i\) or \(\phi = \lnot x_i\) for some \(i \in [n]\). So either \(\phi (Q) = \{x \in Q : x_i = 1\}\) or \(\phi (Q) = \{x \in Q : x_i = 0\}\), respectively. We see immediately that \(\phi (Q)\) contains \(Q \cap \phi ^{1}(1)\).
Now if \(\phi  \geqslant 2\), then \(\phi \) is the conjunction or disjunction of two formulas of smaller size, say \(\phi _1\) and \(\phi _2\). In the first case, \(\phi = \phi _1 \wedge \phi _2\) and we have \(\phi (Q) = \phi _1(Q) \cap \phi _2(Q) \supseteq (Q \cap \phi ^{1}_1(1)) \cap (Q \cap \phi ^{1}_2(1)) = Q \cap (\phi ^{1}_1(1) \cap \phi ^{1}_2(1)) = Q \cap \phi ^{1}(1)\), where the inclusion follows from induction. In the second case, \(\phi = \phi _1 \vee \phi _2\) and \(\phi (Q) = {\text {conv}}(\phi _1(Q) \cup \phi _2(Q)) \supseteq (Q \cap \phi ^{1}_1(1)) \cup (Q \cap \phi ^{1}_2(1)) = Q \cap (\phi ^{1}_1(1) \cup \phi ^{1}_2(1)) = Q \cap \phi ^{1}(1)\). \(\square \)
Next, we argue that we can use \(\phi \) to transform any extended formulation for Q into one for \( \phi (Q) \). To this end, we make use of the extension complexity of a polytope P, which is defined as the smallest size of any extended formulation for P, and is denoted by \( {\text {xc}}(P) \). We need the following standard facts about extension complexity. First, if F is a nonempty face of P, then \( {\text {xc}}(F) \le {\text {xc}}(P) \). Second, for any nonempty polytopes \( P_1, P_2 \subseteq {\mathbb {R}}^n \) one has \( {\text {xc}}(P_1 \cap P_2) \le {\text {xc}}(P_1) + {\text {xc}}(P_2) \). Third, a slight refinement of Balas’ theorem [2] states that \( {\text {xc}}({\text {conv}}(P_1 \cup P_2)) \le \max \{{\text {xc}}(P_1), 1\} + \max \{{\text {xc}}(P_2), 1\} \), see [30, Prop. 3.1.1].
Proposition 3
Let \( \phi \) be a reduced Boolean formula and let \( Q \subseteq [0,1]^n \) be a polytope such that \( \phi (Q) \ne \emptyset \). Then \( \phi (Q) \) is a polytope with extension complexity \( {\text {xc}}(\phi (Q)) \le \phi  {\text {xc}}(Q) \).
Proof
First, note that if \( {\text {xc}}(Q) = 0 \), then Q is a single point and so is \( \phi (Q) \), which implies \( {\text {xc}}(\phi (Q)) = 0 \) and hence the claimed inequality holds trivially. Thus, we may assume that \( {\text {xc}}(Q) \geqslant 1 \) holds.
We prove the claim by induction over the size of \( \phi \). If \( \phi  = 1 \), then \( \phi = x_i\) or \(\phi = \lnot x_i\) for some \(i \in [n]\). So either \(\phi (Q) = \{x \in Q : x_i = 1\}\) or \(\phi (Q) = \{x \in Q : x_i = 0\}\), respectively. In both cases, \( \phi (Q) \) is a face of Q and hence \( {\text {xc}}(\phi (Q)) \leqslant {\text {xc}}(Q) \).
If \( \phi  \geqslant 2 \), there exist reduced Boolean formulas \( \phi _1,\phi _2 \) (of size smaller than \( \phi  \)) with \( \phi  = \phi _1 + \phi _2 \) such that \( \phi = \phi _1 \wedge \phi _2 \) or \( \phi = \phi _1 \vee \phi _2 \). First, consider the case \( \phi = \phi _1 \wedge \phi _2 \), in which we have \( \phi (Q) = \phi _1(Q) \cap \phi _2(Q) \). Since \( \phi (Q) \) is nonempty, the same holds for \( \phi _1(Q) \) and \( \phi _2(Q) \) and hence, by the induction hypothesis, we have \( {\text {xc}}(\phi _i(Q)) \leqslant \phi _i {\text {xc}}(Q) \) for \( i = 1,2 \). Therefore,
It remains to consider the case \( \phi = \phi _1 \vee \phi _2 \), in which we have \( \phi (Q) = {\text {conv}}(\phi _1(Q) \cup \phi _2(Q)) \).
Note that the claimed inequality holds if \( \phi _1(Q) = \emptyset \) or \( \phi _2(Q) = \emptyset \). Thus, we may assume that \( \phi _1(Q) \) and \( \phi _2(Q) \) are both nonempty. By the induction hypothesis, \( {\text {xc}}(\phi _i(Q)) \leqslant \phi _i {\text {xc}}(Q) \) for \( i = 1,2 \). Therefore,
\(\square \)
We remark that the upper bound provided by Proposition 3 is quite generous, and can be improved in some cases. For instance, if we let \(\tau \) denote the number of maximal rooted subtrees of \(\phi \) whose nodes are either input variables or \(\wedge \) gates, then we have \({\text {xc}}(\phi (Q)) \leqslant \tau {\text {xc}}(Q)\). This is due to the wellknown fact that any intersection of faces of Q is a face of Q.
A Boolean formula is monotone if it does not contain negations. We are ready to prove our main theorem in the monotone case.
Theorem 4
Let \( \phi \) be a monotone Boolean formula defining a set \( S \subseteq \{0,1\}^n \) and let \( Q \subseteq [0,1]^n \) be any convex set containing S. If Q satisfies all monotone inequalities of pitch at most \( p\) that are valid for S, then \( \phi (Q) \) satisfies all monotone inequalities of pitch at most \( p+ 1 \) that are valid for S. Moreover, if Q is a polytope defined by an extended formulation of size \( \sigma \), then \( \phi (Q) \) is a polytope that can be defined by an extended formulation of size \( \phi  \sigma \), where \( \phi  \) is the size of the formula.
Proof
The second part of the theorem is implied by Proposition 3. For the first part, consider any monotone pitch\((p+1)\) inequality in standard form that is valid for \(S = \{x \in \{0,1\}^n : \phi (x) = 1\}\),
By the definition of pitch, we may assume \(c_i > 0\) for all \(i \in I^+\). We also assume \(\delta >0\); otherwise, there is nothing to prove. Let \(a \in \{0,1\}^n\) be the characteristic vector of \([n] {\setminus } I^+\). Thus, \(a_i = 1\) if \(i \in [n] {\setminus } I^+\) and \(a_i = 0\) if \(i \in I^+\). Notice that a violates (5). This implies \(\phi (a) = 0\).
By contradiction, suppose that (5) is not valid for \(\phi (Q)\). That is, there exists a point in \(\phi (Q)\) that violates (5). Let T be a tree that represents the formula \(\phi \). Each \(v \in V(T)\) has a corresponding formula, which is the formula computed by the subtree of T rooted at v. For notational convenience, we identity each node of T with its corresponding formula.
Our strategy is to find a roottoleaf path in T such that for every node \(\psi \) on this path,
This is satisfied at the root node \(\phi \).
Now consider any nonleaf node \(\psi \) in T that satisfies (\(\star \)). Let \(\psi _1\) and \(\psi _2\) denote the children of \(\psi \), so that \(\psi = \psi _1 \wedge \psi _2\) or \(\psi = \psi _1 \vee \psi _2\). We claim that, in both cases, there exists an index \(k \in \{1,2\}\) such that \(\psi _k\) satisfies (\(\star \)).
First, in case \(\psi = \psi _1 \wedge \psi _2\), we let \(\tilde{x}(\psi _1) = \tilde{x}(\psi _2) := \tilde{x}(\psi )\) and choose \(k \in \{1,2\}\) such that \(\psi _k(a) = 0\). Such an index is guaranteed to exist since \(\psi (a) = 0\). Then \(\psi _k\) satisfies (\(\star \)).
Second, in case \(\psi = \psi _1 \vee \psi _2\), we have \(\psi _1(a) = \psi _2(a) = \psi (a) = 0\). We let \(\tilde{x}(\psi _1)\) and \(\tilde{x}(\psi _2)\) be any points of \(\psi _1(Q)\) and \(\psi _2(Q)\) (respectively) such that the segment \([\tilde{x}(\psi _1),\tilde{x}(\psi _2)]\) contains \(\tilde{x}\). For at least one \(k \in \{1,2\}\), the point \(\tilde{x}(\psi _k)\) violates (5). Thus \(\psi _k\) satisfies (\(\star \)) for that choice of k.
By iterating the argument above, starting at the root node \(\phi \), we reach a leaf node \(\psi \) that satisfies (\(\star \)). Note that \(\psi = x_j\) for some j, since \(\phi \) is monotone. We have \(a_j = \psi (a) = 0\), so \(j \in I^+\). Moreover, there exists a point \(\tilde{x} = \tilde{x}(\psi ) \in \psi (Q) = \{x \in Q : x_j = 1\}\) that violates (5).
Now consider the monotone inequality
This inequality is valid for S since it is the sum of (5) and \(c_j (1x_j) \geqslant 0\), which are both valid. Since \(c_j (1\tilde{x}_j) = 0\), (6) is also violated by \(\tilde{x} \in \psi (Q) \subseteq Q\). The key observation is that the pitch of (6) is at most \(p\), which contradicts our assumption that Q satisfies all monotone inequalities of pitch at most \(p\). \(\square \)
In the nonmonotone case, we now prove a statement analogous to Theorem 4 where the pitch is replaced by the notch.
Theorem 5
Let \( \phi \) be a reduced Boolean formula defining a set \( S \subseteq \{0,1\}^n \) and let \( Q \subseteq [0,1]^n \) be any convex set containing S. If Q satisfies all inequalities of notch at most \( \nu \) that are valid for S, then \( \phi (Q) \) satisfies all inequalities of notch at most \( \nu + 1\) that are valid for S. Moreover, if Q is a polytope defined by an extended formulation of size \( \sigma \), then \( \phi (Q) \) is a polytope that can be defined by an extended formulation of size \( \phi  \sigma \).
Proof
The proof is almost identical to that of Theorem 4. Instead of repeating the whole proof, here we only explain the differences. The starting point is a notch\((\nu +1)\) inequality
where \(I^+ \subseteq [n] \) and \(I^ \subseteq [n] \) satisfy \( I^+ \cap I^ = \emptyset \) and \( I^+ \cup I^ = [n] \), \(\delta >0\), and \(c_i \geqslant 0\) for all \(i \in [n]\). Contrary to the previous proof, here we allow \(c_i=0\). Let \(a \in \{0,1\}^n\) be the characteristic vector of \(I^\). Notice that a violates (7). This implies \(\phi (a) = 0\).
Let T be a tree that represents the formula \(\phi \). Using the same proof strategy, we find a leaf node \(\psi = x_j\) or \(\psi = \lnot x_j\) of T such that \(\psi (a) = 0\), and there exists a point \(\tilde{x} = \tilde{x}(\psi ) \in \psi (Q)\) that violates (7).
If \(\psi = x_j\), then \(j \in I^+\) and we consider the valid inequality
Otherwise, \(\psi = \lnot x_j\) and thus \(j \in I^\). In this case, we consider the valid inequality
Since (7) is a notch\((\nu +1)\) inequality, it is easy to check that the notch of both of the above inequalities is at most \(\nu \). However, they are violated by the point \(\tilde{x} = \tilde{x}(\psi ) \in Q\). As in the proof of Theorem 4, this gives the desired contradiction. \(\square \)
Setting \( \phi ^1(Q) := \phi (Q) \) and \( \phi ^{\ell + 1}(Q) := \phi (\phi ^\ell (Q)) \) for \( \ell \in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\ge 1} \), and using the trivial fact that the notch of a nontrivial inequality is at most n, we immediately obtain the following corollary.
Corollary 6
Let \( \phi \) be a reduced Boolean formula defining a set \( S \subseteq \{0,1\}^n \) and let \( Q \subseteq [0,1]^n \) be any convex set containing S. Then we have \( \phi ^n(Q) = {\text {conv}}(S) \).
Another consequence of Theorem 5 is that integer points not belonging to S are already excluded from \( \phi (Q) \).
Corollary 7
Let \( \phi \) be a reduced Boolean formula defining a set \( S \subseteq \{0,1\}^n \) and let \( Q \subseteq [0,1]^n \) be any convex set containing S. Then we have \( \phi (Q) \cap {\mathbb {Z}}^n = S \).
Proof
It suffices to show that no point from \( \{0,1\}^n {\setminus } S \) is contained in \( \phi (Q) \). To this end, fix \( {\bar{x}} \in \{0,1\}^n {\setminus } S \) and consider the inequality
which is violated by \( {\bar{x}} \), but valid for all other points of \(\{0,1\}^n\). Since the inequality has notch 1, by Theorem 5 it is also valid for \( \phi (Q) \) and hence \( {\bar{x}} \) is not contained in \( \phi (Q) \). \(\square \)
Applications
In this section, we present several applications of our procedure, in which we repeatedly make use of Theorems 4 and 5.
Monotone formulas for matching
As a first application, we demonstrate how our findings together with Rothvoß’ result [25] on the extension complexity of the matching polytope yield a very simple proof of a seminal result of Raz and Wigderson [23, Theorem 4.1], which states^{Footnote 4} that any monotone Boolean formula deciding whether a graph on n nodes contains a perfect matching has size \( 2^{\Omega (n)} \). Before giving any further detail, we point out that Raz and Wigderson’s result extends to the bipartite case [23, Theorem 4.2], which is not the case of the polyhedral approach described below.
The fact that Rothvoß’ theorem implies Raz and Wigderson’s was first discovered by Göös, Jain and Watson [15]. While their arguments are based on connections between nonnegative ranks of certain slack matrices and KarchmerWigderson games, which implicitly play an important role in the proofs of Theorems 4 and 5, our results yield a straightforward proof that does not require any further notions.
To this end, let \( n \in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\ge 2} \) be even and let \( G = (V, E) \) denote the complete undirected graph on n nodes. The set S considered by Raz and Wigderson is the set
Let \( \phi \) be any monotone Boolean formula in variables \( x_e \) (\( e \in E \)) that defines S. Next, define the polytope
It is a basic fact that S is contained in P. Furthermore, observe that every nontrivial inequality in the definition of P has pitch 1. Thus, we have \( {\text {conv}}(S) \subseteq \phi ([0,1]^E) \subseteq P \). Moreover, if we consider the affine subspace
it is wellknown that both \( {\text {conv}}(S) \cap D \) and \( P \cap D \) are equal to the perfect matching polytope of G, and hence we obtain that \( \phi ([0,1]^E) \cap D \) is also equal to the perfect matching polytope of G. By Rothvoß’ result, this implies \( {\text {xc}}(\phi ([0,1]^E)) = 2^{\Omega (n)} \). On the other hand, by Proposition 3 we also have \( {\text {xc}}(\phi ([0,1]^E)) \le \phi  \cdot {\text {xc}}([0,1]^E) = \phi  \cdot 2 E \le n^2 \phi  \) and hence \( \phi  \) must be exponential in n.
Covering problems: the binary case
In this section, we consider sets \( S \subseteq \{0,1\}^n \) that arise from 0/1covering problems, in which there is a matrix \( A \in \{0,1\}^{m \times n} \) such that \( S = \{ x \in \{0,1\}^n : Ax \geqslant \mathbf {1} \} \), where \( \mathbf {1} \) is the allones vector. As an example, if A is the nodeedge incidence matrix of an undirected graph G, then the points of S correspond to vertex covers in G. This shows that, in general, the convex hull of such sets S may not admit polynomialsize (in n) extended formulations, see for example, [4, 14, 15].
Moreover, general 0/1hierarchies may have difficulties identifying basic inequalities even in simple instances. For example, in [8] it is shown that if \( Ax \geqslant \mathbf {1} \) consists of the inequalities \( \sum _{i \in [n] \setminus \{j\}} x_i \geqslant 1 \) for each \( j \in [n] \), then it takes at least \( n  2 \) rounds of the LovászSchrijver or SheraliAdams hierarchy to satisfy the pitch2 inequality \( \sum _{i \in [n]} x_i \geqslant 2 \).
By developing a hierarchy tailored to 0/1covering problems, Bienstock and Zuckerberg [7] were able to bypass some of these issues. As their main result, for each \( k \in {\mathbb {N}} \), they construct a polytope \( f^k(Q) \) containing S satisfying the following two properties. First, every inequality of pitch at most k that is valid for S is also valid for \( f^k(Q) \). Second, \( f^k(Q) \) can be described by an extended formulation of size \( (m + n)^{g(k)} \), where \( g(k) = \Omega (k^2) \). However, constructing the polytope \( f^k(Q) \) is quite technical and involved.
In contrast, our procedure directly implies significantly simpler and smaller extended formulations that satisfy all pitchk inequalities.
Corollary 8
Let \( A \in \{0,1\}^{m \times n} \), \( S = \{ x \in \{0,1\}^n : Ax \geqslant \mathbf {1} \} \), and \(k \in {\mathbb {N}}\). Then there is a polyhedral relaxation P of S such that all points of P satisfy all valid inequalities of pitch at most k, and P can be defined by an extended formulation of size at most \(2n \cdot (mn)^k\).
Proof
Let \(\phi := \bigwedge _{i = 1}^m \bigvee _{j : A_{ij} = 1} x_j\). Since \([0,1]^n\) has 2n facets and \(\phi \) has size at most mn, we may take \(P=\phi ^k([0,1]^n)\) by Theorem 4. \(\square \)
Covering problems: bounded coefficients
Next, we consider a more general form of a covering problem in which \( S = \{ x \in \{0,1\}^n : Ax \geqslant b \} \) for some nonnegative integer matrix \( A \in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\ge 0}^{m \times n} \) and \( b \in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\ge 1}^m \). We first restrict ourselves to the case that all entries in A and b are bounded by some constant \( \Delta \in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\ge 2} \).
Based on their results in [7], Bienstock and Zuckerberg [8] provide an extended formulation of size \( O(m + n^\Delta )^{g(k)} \), where \( g(k) = \Omega (k^2) \). Our method yields a significantly smaller extended formulation, via the following lemma.
Lemma 9
For every \( A \in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\ge 0}^{m \times n} \) and \( b \in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\ge 1}^m \) with entries bounded by \( \Delta \), the set \( S = \{ x \in \{0,1\}^n : Ax \geqslant b \} \) can be defined by a monotone formula \( \phi \) of size at most \( \Delta ^{5.3} m n \log ^{O(1)}(n) \). Moreover, this formula can be constructed in randomized polynomial time.
Proof
Fix \( i \in [m] \), let \( n' := \sum _{j=1}^n A_{ij} \) and let \( \psi _i \) be a monotone formula defining the set \( \{ y \in \{0,1\}^{n'} : \sum _{k=1}^{n'} y_k \ge b_i\} \). Next, pick any function \( h : [n'] \rightarrow [n] \) such that \( h^{1}(j) = A_{ij} \) for all \( j \in [n] \). In formula \(\psi _i\), replace every occurrence of \( y_{k} \) by \( x_{h(k)} \), for \( k \in [n'] \). We obtain a monotone formula \(\phi _i\) defining the set \( \{x \in \{0,1\}^n : \sum _{j=1}^n A_{ij} x_j \ge b_i\} \). By using the construction of Hoory, Magen and Pitassi [16] for the initial formula \( \psi _i \), the resulting formula \( \phi _i \) has size
since \( n' \le n \Delta \) and \( b_i \le \Delta \). The result follows by taking \( \phi := \bigwedge _{i=1}^m \phi _i \). \(\square \)
Corollary 10
Let \( A \in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\ge 0}^{m \times n} \), \( b \in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\ge 1}^m \) with entries bounded by \( \Delta \), \( S = \{ x \in \{0,1\}^n : Ax \geqslant b \} \), and \(k \in {\mathbb {N}}\). Then there is a polyhedral relaxation P of S such that all points of P satisfy all valid inequalities of pitch at most k, and P can be defined by an extended formulation of size at most \((\Delta ^{5.3} m n \log ^{O(1)}(n))^k\).
Proof
By Theorem 4, we may take \(P= \phi ^k([0,1]^n) \), where \(\phi \) is the formula from Lemma 9. \(\square \)
Covering problems: the general case
In some cases, especially when \( m = O(1) \), the matrix \( A \in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\ge 0}^{m \times n} \) and vector \( b \in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\ge 0}^m \) may have coefficients as large as \( 2^{\Omega (n \log n)} \). For such general instances, we can improve the bound from Corollary 10.
Corollary 11
Let \( A \in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\ge 0}^{m \times n} \), \( b \in {\mathbb {Z}}_{\ge 1}^m \), \( S = \{ x \in \{0,1\}^n : Ax \geqslant b \} \), and \(k \in {\mathbb {N}}\). Then there is a polyhedral relaxation P of S such that all points of P satisfy all valid inequalities of pitch at most k, and P can be defined by an extended formulation of size at most \( \left( m n^{O(\log n)} \right) ^k \).
Proof
Beimel and Weinreb [5] show that, for every \( a_1,\dotsc ,a_n,\delta \in {\mathbb {R}}_{\ge 0} \), the set \( \{ x \in \{0,1\}^n : \sum _{j=1}^n a_j x_j \geqslant \delta \} \) can be decided by a monotone formula of size \( n^{O(\log n)} \). Let \( \phi \) be the conjunction of these formulas for each inequality in \( Ax \geqslant b \). By Theorem 4, we may take \(P= \phi ^k([0,1]^n) \). \(\square \)
In comparison, for this general case, Bienstock and Zuckerberg [7] have no nontrivial upper bound.
Constant notch 0/1sets
In this section, we consider nonempty sets \(S \subseteq \{0,1\}^n\) with constant notch \( \nu (S) \). These sets have several desirable properties. For example, as noted in [3] (and implicitly in [11]), there is an easy polynomialtime algorithm to optimize a linear function over a constant notch set S, provided that we have a polynomialtime membership oracle for S. On the other hand, sets with constant notch do not necessarily admit small extended formulations. Indeed, counting arguments developed in [1, 24] show that even for a “generic” set \( S \subseteq \{0,1\}^n \) with notch \( \nu (S) = 1 \), \({\text {conv}}(S)\) requires extended formulations of size \( 2^{\Omega (n)} \).
This raises the question of which constant notch sets do admit compact extended formulations. As an immediate corollary to Theorem 5, we have the following nice partial answer.
Corollary 12
If \( S \subseteq \{0,1\}^n \) has constant notch and S can be described by a formula \(\phi \) of size polynomial in n, then \({\text {conv}}(S)\) can be described by a polynomialsize extended formulation.
Notice that every explicit 0/1set S of constant notch such that \({\text {xc}}({\text {conv}}(S))\) is large would thus provide an explicit Boolean function requiring large depth circuits, and solve one of the hardest open problems in circuit complexity.
Comparison and conclusion
In this paper, we propose a new method for strengthening convex relaxations of 0/1sets. Our approach currently yields the simplest and smallest linear extended formulations expressing inequalities of constant pitch in the monotone case, and constant notch in the general case.
By viewing an iterated application of our procedure as a hierarchy, we obtain a significant simplification of the BienstockZuckerberg hierarchy [7]. Prior to our work, [7] had been simplified by Mastrolilli [22] using a modification of the SheraliAdams hierarchy. Subsequent to our work, [7] has also been simplified by Bienstock and Zuckerberg [9] themselves for the case of \( A \in \{0,1\}^{m \times n} \). The way [9] construct their extended formulation is similar to what we do, except that they replace the canonical monotone formula in (1) by a (logically equivalent) nonmonotone formula, which might yield a tighter relaxation in some cases.
Although [22] is an important simplification of [7], our approach is from first principles and assumes no knowledge of polynomial optimization. Moreover, despite the simplicity of our approach, our extended formulations (see Corollaries 8, 10, and 11) are significantly smaller than those provided by [7, 22]. This is possible since we allow any monotone formula, and can thus use any known construction from the literature. In contrast, Bienstock and Zuckerberg [7] implicitly only consider formulas in conjunctive normal form. The number of clauses in every formula in conjunctive normal form is at least the number of minimal covers^{Footnote 5}, which makes it impossible for them to construct small extended formulations in situations where the number of minimal covers is large.
Furthermore, the way in which we derive our extended formulations is conceptually different than [22]. Mastrolilli [22] first writes down a proof of validity of any boundedpitch inequality that has a certain “polynomial” form (similar to a sumofsquares proof, except that no square is necessary). He then uses this proof to recursively define a set of polynomials \(\mathcal {S} = \mathcal {S}(A,k)\), and then constructs an extended formulation generalizing the SheraliAdams hierarchy from \(\mathcal {S}\). At the heart of his approach is a lemma due to Bienstock and Zuckerberg [7, Lemma 4.2].
In our paper, we give a direct way to strengthen any given relaxation by “feeding” it in a Boolean formula \(\phi \) defining the set of feasible 0/1 solutions. That is, we first describe how to construct the extended formulation. Then we prove that each iteration (of the same procedure) “gives at least one extra unit of pitch”. At the heart of our analysis lies a new ingredient (coming from a KarchmerWidgerson game) replacing the lemma from Bienstock and Zuckerberg. This is the reason why we improve the exponential dependence in k from \(k^2\) to k in Corollary 8.
Finally, as far as we can tell, our results from Sects. 5.1 and 5.5 are completely independent from [7, 9, 22]. To conclude, we state a few open questions raised by our work.

(1)
Do the new extended formulations lead to any new interesting algorithmic application, in particular for covering problems? This appears to be connected to the following question. How good are the lower bounds on the optimum value obtained after performing a few rounds of the ChvátalGomory closure? For some problems, such as the vertex cover problem in graphs or more generally in quniform hypergraphs with \(q = O(1)\), the bounds turn out to be quite poor in the worst case [4, 28]. The situation is less clear for other problems, such as network design problems. Recent work [13] on the tree augmentation problem uses certain inequalities from the first ChvátalGomory closure in an essential way. For the related 2edge connected spanning subgraph problem, our work implies that one can approximately optimize over the \(\ell \)th ChvátalGomory closure in quasipolynomial time, for every \(\ell = O(1)\).

(2)
For which classes of polytopes in \( [0,1]^n \) can one approximate a constant number of rounds of the ChvátalGomory closure with compact extended formulations? Mastrolilli [22] show that this is possible for packing problems. However, his approach crucially uses positive semidefinite extended formulations. Packing problems are unlikely to admit compact linear extended formulations, although we do not have a proof of this.

(3)
Can one find polynomialsize monotone formulas for any nonnegative weighted threshold function, that is, for every minknapsack \(\{x \in \{0,1\}^n : \sum _{i=1}^n a_i x_i \geqslant \beta \}\)? This would improve on the \(n^{O(\log n)}\) upper bound by Beimel and Weinreb [5]. Klabjan, Nemhauser and Tovey show that separating pitch1 inequalities for such sets is NPhard [19]. However, this does not rule out a polynomialsize extended formulation defining a relaxation that would be stronger than that provided by pitch1 inequalities.
Notes
 1.
Some sources also count the number of occurrences of \( \wedge \), \( \vee \) and \( \lnot \), which is not necessary for our purposes.
 2.
To avoid possible confusion, we warn the reader that in a previous version of [6], this notion is called pitch instead of notch.
 3.
Here, this means that \(\min \{c^\intercal x : x \in f^\ell (Q)\} \leqslant (1+\varepsilon ) \min \{c^\intercal x : x \in R\}\) for every nonnegative cost vector c, where \(f^\ell (Q)\) denotes the \(\ell \)th ChvátalGomory closure of Q.
 4.
The original result of Raz and Wigderson states that the depth of any monotone circuit computing the mentioned function is \( \Omega (n) \), which is equivalent to the mentioned result, see [29].
 5.
A point \(x \in \{0,1\}^n\) is called a minterm, and its characteristic vector a minimal cover, if x is a minimal element of S with respect to the componentwise order \(\leqslant \).
References
 1.
Averkov, G., Kaibel, V., Weltge, S.: Maximum semidefinite and linear extension complexity of families of polytopes. Math. Program. 167(2), Ser. A, pp. 381–394 (2018). MR 3755737
 2.
Balas, E.: Disjunctive programming. Ann. Discrete Math. 5, 3–51 (1979). Discrete optimization (Proceedings of the Advanced Research Institute on Discrete Optimization and Systems Applications, Banff, Alta., 1977), II. MR 558566
 3.
Bazzi, A., Fiorini, S., Huang, S., Svensson, O.: Small extended formulation for knapsack cover inequalities from monotone circuits. In: Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACMSIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms 2017, (2017)
 4.
Bazzi, A., Fiorini, S., Pokutta, S., Svensson, O.: No small linear program approximates vertex cover within a factor 2–e. In: 2015 IEEE 56th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 1123–1142 (2015)
 5.
Beimel, A., Weinreb, E.: Monotone circuits for monotone weighted threshold functions. Inf. Process. Lett. 97(1), 12–18 (2006)
 6.
Benchetrit, Y., Fiorini, S., Huynh, T., Weltge, S.: Characterizing Polytopes Contained in the \(0/1\)Cube with Bounded ChvátalGomory Rank. Mathematics of Operations Research (2018)
 7.
Bienstock, D., Zuckerberg, M.: Subset algebra lift operators for 0–1 integer programming. SIAM J. Optim. 15(1), 63–95 (2004). MR 2112976
 8.
Bienstock, D., Zuckerberg, M.: Approximate fixedrank closures of covering problems. Math. Program. Ser. A 105, 9–27 (2006)
 9.
Bienstock, D., Zuckerberg, M.: Simpler derivation of bounded pitch inequalities for set covering, and minimum knapsack sets, arXiv:1806.07435 (2018)
 10.
Chvátal, V.: Edmonds polytopes and a hierarchy of combinatorial problems. Discrete Math. 4, 305–337 (1973). MR 0313080
 11.
Cornuéjols, G., Lee, D.: On some polytopes contained in the 0,1 hypercube that have a small Chvátal rank. In: International Conference on Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization, pp. 300–311. Springer (2016)
 12.
Eisenbrand, F.: On the membership problem for the elementary closure of a polyhedron. Combinatorica 19(2), 297–300 (1999)
 13.
Fiorini, S., Groß, M., Könemann, J., Sanità, L.: Approximating weighted tree augmentation via ChvátalGomory cuts. In: Proceedings of the TwentyNinth Annual ACMSIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 817–831. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA (2018). MR 3775841
 14.
Fiorini, S., Massar, S., Pokutta, S., Tiwary, H. R., de Wolf, R.: Exponential lower bounds for polytopes in combinatorial optimization. J. ACM 62(2), 1–23 (2015)
 15.
Göös, M., Jain, R., Watson, T.: Extension complexity of independent set polytopes. In: Proc. FOCS 2016, (2016)
 16.
Hoory, S., Magen, A., Pitassi, T.: Monotone circuits for the majority function. In: Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques, 9th International Workshop on Approximation Algorithms for Combinatorial Optimization Problems, APPROX 2006 and 10th International Workshop on Randomization and Computation, RANDOM 2006, Barcelona, Spain, August 2830 2006, Proceedings, pp. 410–425 (2006)
 17.
Hrubeš, Pavel: On the nonnegative rank of distance matrices. Inf. Process. Lett. 112(11), 457–461 (2012). MR 2905148
 18.
Karchmer, M., Wigderson, A.: Monotone circuits for connectivity require superlogarithmic depth. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 3, 255–265 (1990)
 19.
Klabjan, D., Nemhauser, G.L., Tovey, C.: The complexity of cover inequality separation. Oper. Res. Lett. 23, 35–40 (1998)
 20.
Lasserre, J. B.: An explicit exact SDP relaxation for nonlinear 01 programs. Integer programming and combinatorial optimization (Utrecht, 2001), Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., vol. 2081, pp. 293–303. Springer, Berlin (2001). MR 2041934
 21.
Lovász, L., Schrijver, A.: Cones of matrices and setfunctions and \(0\)\(1\) optimization. SIAM J. Optim. 1(2), 166–190 (1991). MR 1098425
 22.
Mastrolilli, M: High degree sum of squares proofs, BienstockZuckerberg hierarchy and CG cuts. In: Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization  19th International Conference, IPCO 2017, Waterloo, ON, Canada, June 2628, 2017, Proceedings, pp. 405–416 (2017)
 23.
Raz, R., Wigderson, Avi: Monotone circuits for matching require linear depth. J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 39(3), 736–744 (1992). MR 1177960
 24.
Rothvoß, T.: Some 0/1 polytopes need exponential size extended formulations. Math. Program. A 142, 255–268 (2013)
 25.
Rothvoß, T.: The matching polytope has exponential extension complexity. J. ACM 64, no. 6, Art. 41, 19 (2017). MR 3713797
 26.
Schrijver, A.: Combinatorial optimization. Polyhedra and efficiency. Vol. A, Algorithms and Combinatorics, vol. 24, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 2003, Paths, flows, matchings, Chapters 1–38. MR 1956924 (2004b:90004a)
 27.
Sherali, H.D., Adams, W.P.: A hierarchy of relaxations between the continuous and convex hull representations for zeroone programming problems. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 3(3), 411–430 (1990). MR 1061981
 28.
Singh, M., Talwar, K.: Improving integrality gaps via ChvátalGomory rounding. In: Approximation, Randomization, and Combinatorial Optimization. Algorithms and Techniques, 13th International Workshop, APPROX 2010, and 14th International Workshop, RANDOM 2010, Barcelona, Spain, September 13, 2010. Proceedings, pp. 366–379 (2010)
 29.
Wegener, I.: Relating monotone formula size and monotone depth of Boolean functions. Inf. Process. Lett. 16(1), 41–42 (1983)
 30.
Weltge, S.: Sizes of linear descriptions in combinatorial optimization. dissertation, OttovonGuerickeUniversität Magdeburg, (2016)
Acknowledgements
Open Access funding provided by Projekt DEAL. This work was done while Samuel Fiorini was visiting the Simons Institute for the Theory of Computing. It was supported in part by the DIMACS/Simons Collaboration on Bridging Continuous and Discrete Optimization through NSF grant #CCF1740425, and in part by ERC Consolidator Grant 615640ForEFront. We also thank all the anonymous referees for their constructive comments on the paper.
Author information
Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Fiorini, S., Huynh, T. & Weltge, S. Strengthening convex relaxations of 0/1sets using Boolean formulas. Math. Program. 190, 467–482 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s1010702001542w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s1010702001542w
Mathematics Subject Classification
 90Cxx
 52Bxx
 68Q06