Paper detail

Matching with our Eyes Closed

Motivated by an application in kidney exchange, we study the following query-commit problem: we are given the set of vertices of a non-bipartite graph G. The set of edges in this graph are not known ahead of time. We can query any pair of vertices to determine if they are adjacent. If the queried edge exists, we are committed to match the two endpoints. Our objective is to maximize the size of the matching. This restriction in the amount of information available to the algorithm constraints us to implement myopic, greedy-like algorithms. A simple deterministic greedy algorithm achieves a factor 1/2 which is tight for deterministic algorithms. An important open question in this direction is to give a randomized greedy algorithm that has a significantly better approximation factor. This question was first asked almost 20 years ago by Dyer and Frieze [9] where they showed that a natural randomized strategy of picking edges uniformly at random doesn't help and has an approximation factor of 1/2 + o(1). They left it as an open question to devise a better randomized greedy algorithm. In subsequent work, Aronson, Dyer, Frieze, and Suen [2] gave a different randomized greedy algorithm and showed that it attains a factor 0.5 + epsilon where epsilon is 0.0000025. In this paper we propose and analyze a new randomized greedy algorithm for finding a large matching in a general graph and use it to solve the query commit problem mentioned above. We show that our algorithm attains a factor of at least 0.56, a significant improvement over 0.50000025. We also show that no randomized algorithm can have an approximation factor better than 0.7916 for the query commit problem. For another large and interesting class of randomized algorithms that we call vertex-iterative algorithms, we show that no vertex-iterative algorithm can have an approximation factor better than 0.75.

preprint2013arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.