Paper detail

Sensitivity Analysis of the Maximum Matching Problem

We consider the sensitivity of algorithms for the maximum matching problem against edge and vertex modifications. Algorithms with low sensitivity are desirable because they are robust to edge failure or attack. In this work, we show a randomized $(1-ε)$-approximation algorithm with worst-case sensitivity $O_ε(1)$, which substantially improves upon the $(1-ε)$-approximation algorithm of Varma and Yoshida (arXiv 2020) that obtains average sensitivity $n^{O(1/(1+ε^2))}$ sensitivity algorithm, and show a deterministic $1/2$-approximation algorithm with sensitivity $\exp(O(\log^*n))$ for bounded-degree graphs. We show that any deterministic constant-factor approximation algorithm must have sensitivity $Ω(\log^* n)$. Our results imply that randomized algorithms are strictly more powerful than deterministic ones in that the former can achieve sensitivity independent of $n$ whereas the latter cannot. We also show analogous results for vertex sensitivity, where we remove a vertex instead of an edge. As an application of our results, we give an algorithm for the online maximum matching with $O_ε(n)$ total replacements in the vertex-arrival model. By comparison, Bernstein et al. (J. ACM 2019) gave an online algorithm that always outputs the maximum matching, but only for bipartite graphs and with $O(n\log n)$ total replacements. Finally, we introduce the notion of normalized weighted sensitivity, a natural generalization of sensitivity that accounts for the weights of deleted edges. We show that if all edges in a graph have polynomially bounded weight, then given a trade-off parameter $α>2$, there exists an algorithm that outputs a $\frac{1}{4α}$-approximation to the maximum weighted matching in $O(m\log_α n)$ time, with normalized weighted sensitivity $O(1)$. See paper for full abstract.

preprint2020arXivOpen 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.