Paper detail

Ranking on Arbitrary Graphs: Rematch via Continuous LP with Monotone and Boundary Condition Constraints

Motivated by online advertisement and exchange settings, greedy randomized algorithms for the maximum matching problem have been studied, in which the algorithm makes (random) decisions that are essentially oblivious to the input graph. Any greedy algorithm can achieve performance ratio 0.5, which is the expected number of matched nodes to the number of nodes in a maximum matching. Since Aronson, Dyer, Frieze and Suen proved that the Modified Randomized Greedy (MRG) algorithm achieves performance ratio 0.5 + ε(where ε= frac{1}{400000}) on arbitrary graphs in the mid-nineties, no further attempts in the literature have been made to improve this theoretical ratio for arbitrary graphs until two papers were published in FOCS 2012. Poloczek and Szegedy also analyzed the MRG algorithm to give ratio 0.5039, while Goel and Tripathi used experimental techniques to analyze the Ranking algorithm to give ratio 0.56. However, we could not reproduce the experimental results of Goel and Tripathi. In this paper, we revisit the Ranking algorithm using the LP framework. Special care is given to analyze the structural properties of the Ranking algorithm in order to derive the LP constraints, of which one known as the \emph{boundary} constraint requires totally new analysis and is crucial to the success of our LP. We use continuous LP relaxation to analyze the limiting behavior as the finite LP grows. Of particular interest are new duality and complementary slackness characterizations that can handle the monotone and the boundary constraints in continuous LP. We believe our work achieves the currently best theoretical performance ratio of \frac{2(5-\sqrt{7})}{9} \approx 0.523 on arbitrary graphs. Moreover, experiments suggest that Ranking cannot perform better than 0.724 in general.

preprint2013arXivOpen 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.