Paper detail

The Complexity of Approximately Counting Stable Roommate Assignments

We investigate the complexity of approximately counting stable roommate assignments in two models: (i) the $k$-attribute model, in which the preference lists are determined by dot products of "preference vectors" with "attribute vectors" and (ii) the $k$-Euclidean model, in which the preference lists are determined by the closeness of the "positions" of the people to their "preferred positions". Exactly counting the number of assignments is #P-complete, since Irving and Leather demonstrated #P-completeness for the special case of the stable marriage problem. We show that counting the number of stable roommate assignments in the $k$-attribute model ($k \geq 4$) and the 3-Euclidean model($k \geq 3$) is interreducible, in an approximation-preserving sense, with counting independent sets (of all sizes) (#IS) in a graph, or counting the number of satisfying assignments of a Boolean formula (#SAT). This means that there can be no FPRAS for any of these problems unless NP=RP. As a consequence, we infer that there is no FPRAS for counting stable roommate assignments (#SR) unless NP=RP. Utilizing previous results by the authors, we give an approximation-preserving reduction from counting the number of independent sets in a bipartite graph (#BIS) to counting the number of stable roommate assignments both in the 3-attribute model and in the 2-Euclidean model. #BIS is complete with respect to approximation-preserving reductions in the logically-defined complexity class $#RHΠ_1$. Hence, our result shows that an FPRAS for counting stable roommate assignments in the 3-attribute model would give an FPRAS for all of $#RHΠ_1$. We also show that the 1-attribute stable roommate problem always has either one or two stable roommate assignments, so the number of assignments can be determined exactly in polynomial time.

preprint2012arXivOpen 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.