Matching with Our Eyes Closed

Motivated by an application in kidney exchange, we study the following query-commit problem: we are given the set of vertices of a non-bipartite graph G. The set of edges in this graph are not known ahead of time. We can query any pair of vertices to determine if they are adjacent. If the queried edge exists, we are committed to match the two endpoints. Our objective is to maximize the size of the matching. This restriction in the amount of information available to the algorithm constraints us to implement myopic, greedy-like algorithms. A simple deterministic greedy algorithm achieves a factor 1/2 which is tight for deterministic algorithms. An important open question in this direction is to give a randomized greedy algorithm that has a significantly better approximation factor. This question was first asked almost 20 years ago by Dyer and Frieze [9] where they showed that a natural randomized strategy of picking edges uniformly at random doesn't help and has an approximation factor of 1/2 + o(1). They left it as an open question to devise a better randomized greedy algorithm. In subsequent work, Aronson, Dyer, Frieze, and Suen [2] gave a different randomized greedy algorithm and showed that it attains a factor 0.5 + o where o is 0.0000025. In this paper we propose and analyze a new randomized greedy algorithm for finding a large matching in a general graph and use it to solve the query commit problem mentioned above. We show that our algorithm attains a factor of at least 0.56, a significant improvement over 0.50000025. We also show that no randomized algorithm can have an approximation factor better than 0.7916 for the query commit problem. For another large and interesting class of randomized algorithms that we call vertex-iterative algorithms, we show that no vertex iterative algorithm can have an approximation factor better than 0.75.

[1]  Claire Mathieu,et al.  On-line bipartite matching made simple , 2008, SIGA.

[2]  Aranyak Mehta,et al.  Online bipartite matching with unknown distributions , 2011, STOC '11.

[3]  Asaf Shapira,et al.  On randomizing two derandomized greedy algorithms , 2010 .

[4]  Ran Duan,et al.  Approximating Maximum Weight Matching in Near-Linear Time , 2010, 2010 IEEE 51st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.

[5]  Aranyak Mehta,et al.  AdWords and Generalized On-line Matching , 2005, FOCS.

[6]  Mohammad Mahdian,et al.  Online bipartite matching with random arrivals: an approach based on strongly factor-revealing LPs , 2011, STOC '11.

[7]  Atri Rudra,et al.  Approximating Matches Made in Heaven , 2009, ICALP.

[8]  F T Rapaport,et al.  The case for a living emotionally related international kidney donor exchange registry. , 1986, Transplantation proceedings.

[9]  L. Ross,et al.  Ethics of a paired-kidney-exchange program. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  Andrew Chi-Chih Yao,et al.  Probabilistic computations: Toward a unified measure of complexity , 1977, 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1977).

[11]  Alvin E. Roth,et al.  Pairwise Kidney Exchange , 2004, J. Econ. Theory.

[12]  Mohammad Mahdian,et al.  Improved Approximation Algorithms for Metric Facility Location Problems , 2002, APPROX.

[13]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Approximation algorithms for combinatorial problems , 1973, STOC.

[14]  Silvio Micali,et al.  An O(v|v| c |E|) algoithm for finding maximum matching in general graphs , 1980, 21st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1980).

[15]  Martin E. Dyer,et al.  Randomized Greedy Matching II , 1995, Random Struct. Algorithms.

[16]  M. Utku Ünver,et al.  A Kidney Exchange Clearinghouse in New England. , 2005, The American economic review.

[17]  Aranyak Mehta,et al.  Online budgeted matching in random input models with applications to Adwords , 2008, SODA '08.

[18]  M. Utku Ünver,et al.  Kidney Paired Donation With Compatible Pairs , 2008, American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons.

[19]  Amin Saberi,et al.  A new greedy approach for facility location problems , 2002, STOC '02.

[20]  Atri Rudra,et al.  When LP Is the Cure for Your Matching Woes: Improved Bounds for Stochastic Matchings , 2010, Algorithmica.

[21]  David R. Karger,et al.  Global min-cuts in RNC, and other ramifications of a simple min-out algorithm , 1993, SODA '93.

[22]  Richard M. Karp,et al.  An optimal algorithm for on-line bipartite matching , 1990, STOC '90.

[23]  R. Ravi,et al.  The Query-commit Problem , 2011, ArXiv.

[24]  Amin Saberi,et al.  Allocating online advertisement space with unreliable estimates , 2007, EC '07.

[25]  Gagan Goel,et al.  Online Vertex-Weighted Bipartite Matching and Single-bid Budgeted Allocations , 2010, SODA.

[26]  Stefan Hougardy,et al.  A linear-time approximation algorithm for weighted matchings in graphs , 2005, TALG.

[27]  J. Edmonds Paths, Trees, and Flowers , 1965, Canadian Journal of Mathematics.

[28]  Peter Sanders,et al.  A simpler linear time 2/3-epsilon approximation for maximum weight matching , 2004, Inf. Process. Lett..

[29]  Prasad Tetali,et al.  Stochastic Matching with Commitment , 2012, ICALP.

[30]  Martin E. Dyer,et al.  Randomized Greedy Matching , 1991, Random Struct. Algorithms.

[31]  Rapaport Ft,et al.  The case for a living emotionally related international kidney donor exchange registry. , 1986 .