Paper detail

On Randomized Algorithms for Matching in the Online Preemptive Model

We investigate the power of randomized algorithms for the maximum cardinality matching (MCM) and the maximum weight matching (MWM) problems in the online preemptive model. In this model, the edges of a graph are revealed one by one and the algorithm is required to always maintain a valid matching. On seeing an edge, the algorithm has to either accept or reject the edge. If accepted, then the adjacent edges are discarded. The complexity of the problem is settled for deterministic algorithms. Almost nothing is known for randomized algorithms. A lower bound of $1.693$ is known for MCM with a trivial upper bound of $2$. An upper bound of $5.356$ is known for MWM. We initiate a systematic study of the same in this paper with an aim to isolate and understand the difficulty. We begin with a primal-dual analysis of the deterministic algorithm due to McGregor. All deterministic lower bounds are on instances which are trees at every step. For this class of (unweighted) graphs we present a randomized algorithm which is $\frac{28}{15}$-competitive. The analysis is a considerable extension of the (simple) primal-dual analysis for the deterministic case. The key new technique is that the distribution of primal charge to dual variables depends on the "neighborhood" and needs to be done after having seen the entire input. The assignment is asymmetric: in that edges may assign different charges to the two end-points. Also the proof depends on a non-trivial structural statement on the performance of the algorithm on the input tree. The other main result of this paper is an extension of the deterministic lower bound of Varadaraja to a natural class of randomized algorithms which decide whether to accept a new edge or not using independent random choices.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 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.