Quasi-popular Matchings, Optimality, and Extended Formulations
April 11, 2019 Β· Declared Dead Β· π ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Yuri Faenza, Telikepalli Kavitha
arXiv ID
1904.05974
Category
cs.DS: Data Structures & Algorithms
Cross-listed
cs.CC,
math.CO
Citations
24
Venue
ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms
Last Checked
3 months ago
Abstract
Let G = ((A,B),E) be an instance of the stable marriage problem where every vertex ranks its neighbors in a strict order of preference. A matching M in G is popular if M does not lose a head-to-head election against any matching. Popular matchings are a well-studied generalization of stable matchings, introduced with the goal of enlarging the set of admissible solutions, while maintaining a certain level of fairness. Every stable matching is a min-size popular matching. Unfortunately, when there are edge costs, it is NP-hard to find a popular matching of minimum cost -- even worse, the min-cost popular matching problem is hard to approximate up to any factor. Let opt be the cost of a min-cost popular matching. Our goal is to efficiently compute a matching of cost at most opt by paying the price of mildly relaxing popularity. Our main positive results are two bi-criteria algorithms that find in polynomial time a near-popular or quasi-popular matching of cost at most opt. Moreover, one of the algorithms finds a quasi-popular matching of cost at most that of a min-cost popular fractional matching, which could be much smaller than opt. Key to the other algorithm is a polynomial-size extended formulation for an integral polytope sandwiched between the popular and quasi-popular matching polytopes. We complement these results by showing that it is NP-hard to find a quasi-popular matching of minimum cost, and that both the popular and quasi-popular matching polytopes have near-exponential extension complexity. This version of the paper goes beyond the conference version [12] in the following two points: (i) the algorithm for finding a quasi-popular matching of cost at most that of a min-cost popular fractional matching is new; (ii) the proofs from Section 6.1 and Section 7.3 are now self-contained (the conference version used constructions from [10] to show these lower bounds).
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Data Structures & Algorithms
π
π
The Cartographer
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Route Planning in Transportation Networks
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Near-linear time approximation algorithms for optimal transport via Sinkhorn iteration
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Hierarchical Clustering: Objective Functions and Algorithms
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Graph Isomorphism in Quasipolynomial Time
π
π
The Cartographer
Simulation optimization: A review of algorithms and applications
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted