Paper detail

Matchings with lower quotas: Algorithms and complexity

We study a natural generalization of the maximum weight many-to-one matching problem. We are given an undirected bipartite graph $G= (A \cup P, E)$ with weights on the edges in $E$, and with lower and upper quotas on the vertices in $P$. We seek a maximum weight many-to-one matching satisfying two sets of constraints: vertices in $A$ are incident to at most one matching edge, while vertices in $P$ are either unmatched or they are incident to a number of matching edges between their lower and upper quota. This problem, which we call maximum weight many-to-one matching with lower and upper quotas (WMLQ), has applications to the assignment of students to projects within university courses, where there are constraints on the minimum and maximum numbers of students that must be assigned to each project. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive analysis of the complexity of WMLQ from the viewpoints of classic polynomial time algorithms, fixed-parameter tractability, as well as approximability. We draw the line between NP-hard and polynomially tractable instances in terms of degree and quota constraints and provide efficient algorithms to solve the tractable ones. We further show that the problem can be solved in polynomial time for instances with bounded treewidth; however, the corresponding runtime is exponential in the treewidth with the maximum upper quota $u_{max}$ as basis, and we prove that this dependence is necessary unless FPT = W[1]. The approximability of WMLQ is also discussed: we present an approximation algorithm for the general case with performance guarantee $u_{\max}+1$, which is asymptotically best possible unless P = NP. Finally, we elaborate on how most of our positive results carry over to matchings in arbitrary graphs with lower quotas.

preprint2016arXivOpen 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.