Source author record

Telikepalli Kavitha

Telikepalli Kavitha appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Data Structures and Algorithms Discrete Mathematics Computational Complexity Computer Science and Game Theory Distributed, Parallel, and Cluster Computing econ.TH math.CO

Catalog footprint

What is connected

10works

7topics

4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Open graph Browse works

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

preprint2022arXiv

Popular Matchings with One-Sided Bias

Let $G = (A \cup B,E)$ be a bipartite graph where the set $A$ consists of agents or main players and the set $B$ consists of jobs or secondary players. Every vertex has a strict ranking of its neighbors. A matching $M$ is popular if for any matching $N$, the number of vertices that prefer $M$ to $N$ is at least the number that prefer $N$ to $M$. Popular matchings always exist in $G$ since every stable matching is popular. A matching $M$ is $A$-popular if for any matching $N$, the number of agents (i.e., vertices in $A$) that prefer $M$ to $N$ is at least the number of agents that prefer $N$ to $M$. Unlike popular matchings, $A$-popular matchings need not exist in a given instance $G$ and there is a simple linear time algorithm to decide if $G$ admits an $A$-popular matching and compute one, if so. We consider the problem of deciding if $G$ admits a matching that is both popular and $A$-popular and finding one, if so. We call such matchings fully popular. A fully popular matching is useful when $A$ is the more important side -- so along with overall popularity, we would like to maintain ``popularity within the set $A$''. A fully popular matching is not necessarily a min-size/max-size popular matching and all known polynomial-time algorithms for popular matching problems compute either min-size or max-size popular matchings. Here we show a linear time algorithm for the fully popular matching problem, thus our result shows a new tractable subclass of popular matchings.

preprint2021arXiv

Popular Matchings in Complete Graphs

Our input is a complete graph $G = (V,E)$ on $n$ vertices where each vertex has a strict ranking of all other vertices in $G$. Our goal is to construct a matching in $G$ that is popular. A matching $M$ is popular if $M$ does not lose a head-to-head election against any matching $M'$, where each vertex casts a vote for the matching in $\{M,M'\}$ where it gets assigned a better partner. The popular matching problem is to decide whether a popular matching exists or not. The popular matching problem in $G$ is easy to solve for odd $n$. Surprisingly, the problem becomes NP-hard for even $n$, as we show here.

preprint2020arXiv

Envy-free Relaxations for Goods, Chores, and Mixed Items

In fair division problems, we are given a set $S$ of $m$ items and a set $N$ of $n$ agents with individual preferences, and the goal is to find an allocation of items among agents so that each agent finds the allocation fair. There are several established fairness concepts and envy-freeness is one of the most extensively studied ones. However envy-free allocations do not always exist when items are indivisible and this has motivated relaxations of envy-freeness: envy-freeness up to one item (EF1) and envy-freeness up to any item (EFX) are two well-studied relaxations. We consider the problem of finding EF1 and EFX allocations for utility functions that are not necessarily monotone, and propose four possible extensions of different strength to this setting. In particular, we present a polynomial-time algorithm for finding an EF1 allocation for two agents with arbitrary utility functions. An example is given showing that EFX allocations need not exist for two agents with non-monotone, non-additive, identical utility functions. However, when all agents have monotone (not necessarily additive) identical utility functions, we prove that an EFX allocation of chores always exists. As a step toward understanding the general case, we discuss two subclasses of utility functions: Boolean utilities that are $\{0,+1\}$-valued functions, and negative Boolean utilities that are $\{0,-1\}$-valued functions. For the latter, we give a polynomial time algorithm that finds an EFX allocation when the utility functions are identical.

preprint2020arXiv

Quasi-popular Matchings, Optimality, and Extended Formulations

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).

preprint2016arXiv

Distributed Construction of Purely Additive Spanners

This paper studies the complexity of distributed construction of purely additive spanners in the CONGEST model. We describe algorithms for building such spanners in several cases. Because of the need to simultaneously make decisions at far apart locations, the algorithms use additional mechanisms compared to their sequential counterparts. We complement our algorithms with a lower bound on the number of rounds required for computing pairwise spanners. The standard reductions from set-disjointness and equality seem unsuitable for this task because no specific edge needs to be removed from the graph. Instead, to obtain our lower bound, we define a new communication complexity problem that reduces to computing a sparse spanner, and prove a lower bound on its communication complexity using information theory. This technique significantly extends the current toolbox used for obtaining lower bounds for the CONGEST model, and we believe it may find additional applications.

preprint2016arXiv

Popular matchings with two-sided preferences and one-sided ties

We are given a bipartite graph $G = (A \cup B, E)$ where each vertex has a preference list ranking its neighbors: in particular, every $a \in A$ ranks its neighbors in a strict order of preference, whereas the preference lists of $b \in B$ may contain ties. A matching $M$ is popular if there is no matching $M'$ such that the number of vertices that prefer $M'$ to $M$ exceeds the number of vertices that prefer $M$ to~$M'$. We show that the problem of deciding whether $G$ admits a popular matching or not is NP-hard. This is the case even when every $b \in B$ either has a strict preference list or puts all its neighbors into a single tie. In contrast, we show that the problem becomes polynomially solvable in the case when each $b \in B$ puts all its neighbors into a single tie. That is, all neighbors of $b$ are tied in $b$'s list and $b$ desires to be matched to any of them. Our main result is an $O(n^2)$ algorithm (where $n = |A \cup B|$) for the popular matching problem in this model. Note that this model is quite different from the model where vertices in $B$ have no preferences and do not care whether they are matched or not.

preprint2015arXiv

Popular Edges and Dominant Matchings

Given a bipartite graph G = (A u B, E) with strict preference lists and and edge e*, we ask if there exists a popular matching in G that contains the edge e*. We call this the popular edge problem. A matching M is popular if there is no matching M' such that the vertices that prefer M' to M outnumber those that prefer M to M'. It is known that every stable matching is popular; however G may have no stable matching with the edge e* in it. In this paper we identify another natural subclass of popular matchings called "dominant matchings" and show that if there is a popular matching that contains the edge e*, then there is either a stable matching that contains e* or a dominant matching that contains e*. This allows us to design a linear time algorithm for the popular edge problem. We also use dominant matchings to efficiently test if every popular matching in G is stable or not.

preprint2013arXiv

On Pairwise Spanners

Given an undirected $n$-node unweighted graph $G = (V, E)$, a spanner with stretch function $f(\cdot)$ is a subgraph $H\subseteq G$ such that, if two nodes are at distance $d$ in $G$, then they are at distance at most $f(d)$ in $H$. Spanners are very well studied in the literature. The typical goal is to construct the sparsest possible spanner for a given stretch function. In this paper we study pairwise spanners, where we require to approximate the $u$-$v$ distance only for pairs $(u,v)$ in a given set $\cP \subseteq V\times V$. Such $\cP$-spanners were studied before [Coppersmith,Elkin'05] only in the special case that $f(\cdot)$ is the identity function, i.e. distances between relevant pairs must be preserved exactly (a.k.a. pairwise preservers). Here we present pairwise spanners which are at the same time sparser than the best known preservers (on the same $\cP$) and of the best known spanners (with the same $f(\cdot)$). In more detail, for arbitrary $\cP$, we show that there exists a $\mathcal{P}$-spanner of size $O(n(|\cP|\log n)^{1/4})$ with $f(d)=d+4\log n$. Alternatively, for any $\eps>0$, there exists a $\cP$-spanner of size $O(n|\cP|^{1/4}\sqrt{\frac{\log n}{\eps}})$ with $f(d)=(1+\eps)d+4$. We also consider the relevant special case that there is a critical set of nodes $S\subseteq V$, and we wish to approximate either the distances within nodes in $S$ or from nodes in $S$ to any other node. We show that there exists an $(S\times S)$-spanner of size $O(n\sqrt{|S|})$ with $f(d)=d+2$, and an $(S\times V)$-spanner of size $O(n\sqrt{|S|\log n})$ with $f(d)=d+2\log n$. All the mentioned pairwise spanners can be constructed in polynomial time.

preprint2011arXiv

Incremental Cycle Detection, Topological Ordering, and Strong Component Maintenance

We present two on-line algorithms for maintaining a topological order of a directed $n$-vertex acyclic graph as arcs are added, and detecting a cycle when one is created. Our first algorithm handles $m$ arc additions in $O(m^{3/2})$ time. For sparse graphs ($m/n = O(1)$), this bound improves the best previous bound by a logarithmic factor, and is tight to within a constant factor among algorithms satisfying a natural {\em locality} property. Our second algorithm handles an arbitrary sequence of arc additions in $O(n^{5/2})$ time. For sufficiently dense graphs, this bound improves the best previous bound by a polynomial factor. Our bound may be far from tight: we show that the algorithm can take $Ω(n^2 2^{\sqrt{2\lg n}})$ time by relating its performance to a generalization of the $k$-levels problem of combinatorial geometry. A completely different algorithm running in $Θ(n^2 \log n)$ time was given recently by Bender, Fineman, and Gilbert. We extend both of our algorithms to the maintenance of strong components, without affecting the asymptotic time bounds.

preprint2010arXiv

Popularity at Minimum Cost

We consider an extension of the {\em popular matching} problem in this paper. The input to the popular matching problem is a bipartite graph G = (A U B,E), where A is a set of people, B is a set of items, and each person a belonging to A ranks a subset of items in an order of preference, with ties allowed. The popular matching problem seeks to compute a matching M* between people and items such that there is no matching M where more people are happier with M than with M*. Such a matching M* is called a popular matching. However, there are simple instances where no popular matching exists. Here we consider the following natural extension to the above problem: associated with each item b belonging to B is a non-negative price cost(b), that is, for any item b, new copies of b can be added to the input graph by paying an amount of cost(b) per copy. When G does not admit a popular matching, the problem is to "augment" G at minimum cost such that the new graph admits a popular matching. We show that this problem is NP-hard; in fact, it is NP-hard to approximate it within a factor of sqrt{n1}/2, where n1 is the number of people. This problem has a simple polynomial time algorithm when each person has a preference list of length at most 2. However, if we consider the problem of "constructing" a graph at minimum cost that admits a popular matching that matches all people, then even with preference lists of length 2, the problem becomes NP-hard. On the other hand, when the number of copies of each item is "fixed", we show that the problem of computing a minimum cost popular matching or deciding that no popular matching exists can be solved in O(mn1) time, where m is the number of edges.