Paper detail

Greedy Matching: Guarantees and Limitations

Since Tinhofer proposed the MinGreedy algorithm for maximum cardinality matching in 1984, several experimental studies found the randomized algorithm to perform excellently for various classes of random graphs and benchmark instances. In contrast, only few analytical results are known. We show that MinGreedy cannot improve on the trivial approximation ratio 1/2 whp., even for bipartite graphs. Our hard inputs seem to require a small number of high-degree nodes. This motivates an investigation of greedy algorithms on graphs with maximum degree D: We show that MinGreedy achieves a (D-1)/(2D-3)-approximation for graphs with D=3 and for D-regular graphs, and a guarantee of (D-1/2)/(2D-2) for graphs with maximum degree D. Interestingly, our bounds even hold for the deterministic MinGreedy that breaks all ties arbitrarily. Moreover, we investigate the limitations of the greedy paradigm, using the model of priority algorithms introduced by Borodin, Nielsen, and Rackoff. We study deterministic priority algorithms and prove a (D-1)/(2D-3)-inapproximability result for graphs with maximum degree D; thus, these greedy algorithms do not achieve a 1/2+eps-approximation and in particular the 2/3-approximation obtained by the deterministic MinGreedy for D=3 is optimal in this class. For k-uniform hypergraphs we show a tight 1/k-inapproximability bound. We also study fully randomized priority algorithms and give a 5/6-inapproximability bound. Thus, they cannot compete with matching algorithms of other paradigms.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 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.