Paper detail

Fully Online Matching II: Beating Ranking and Water-filling

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 $Ω\approx 0.567$-competitive on bipartite graphs where the $Ω$-constant satisfies $Ωe^Ω= 1$, 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).

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.