Fully Online Matching II: Beating Ranking and Water-filling
May 13, 2020 Β· Declared Dead Β· π IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Zhiyi Huang, Zhihao Gavin Tang, Xiaowei Wu, Yuhao Zhang
arXiv ID
2005.06311
Category
cs.DS: Data Structures & Algorithms
Citations
35
Venue
IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science
Last Checked
3 months ago
Abstract
Karp, Vazirani, and Vazirani (STOC 1990) initiated the study of online bipartite matching, which has held a central role in online algorithms ever since. Of particular importance are the Ranking algorithm for integral matching and the Water-filling algorithm for fractional matching. Most algorithms in the literature can be viewed as adaptations of these two in the corresponding models. Recently, Huang et al.~(STOC 2018, SODA 2019) introduced a more general model called \emph{fully online matching}, which considers general graphs and allows all vertices to arrive online. They also generalized Ranking and Water-filling to fully online matching and gave some tight analysis: Ranking is $Ξ©\approx 0.567$-competitive on bipartite graphs where the $Ξ©$-constant satisfies $Ξ©e^Ξ©= 1$, and Water-filling is $2-\sqrt{2} \approx 0.585$-competitive on general graphs. We propose fully online matching algorithms strictly better than Ranking and Water-filling. For integral matching on bipartite graphs, we build on the online primal dual analysis of Ranking and Water-filling to design a $0.569$-competitive hybrid algorithm called Balanced Ranking. To our knowledge, it is the first integral algorithm in the online matching literature that successfully integrates ideas from Water-filling. For fractional matching on general graphs, we give a $0.592$-competitive algorithm called Eager Water-filling, which may match a vertex on its arrival. By contrast, the original Water-filling algorithm always matches vertices at their deadlines. Our result for fractional matching further shows a separation between fully online matching and the general vertex arrival model by Wang and Wong (ICALP 2015), due to an upper bound of $0.5914$ in the latter model by Buchbinder, Segev, and Tkach (ESA 2017).
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