Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
149 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Weakly-Popular and Super-Popular Matchings with Ties and Their Connection to Stable Matchings (2310.12269v2)

Published 18 Oct 2023 in cs.GT

Abstract: In this paper, we study a slightly different definition of popularity in bipartite graphs $G=(U,W,E)$ with two-sided preferences, when ties are present in the preference lists. This is motivated by the observation that if an agent $u$ is indifferent between his original partner $w$ in matching $M$ and his new partner $w'\ne w$ in matching $N$, then he may probably still prefer to stay with his original partner, as change requires effort, so he votes for $M$ in this case, instead of being indifferent. We show that this alternative definition of popularity, which we call weak-popularity allows us to guarantee the existence of such a matching and also to find a weakly-popular matching in polynomial-time that has size at least $\frac{3}{4}$ the size of the maximum weakly popular matching. We also show that this matching is at least $\frac{4}{5}$ times the size of the maximum (weakly) stable matching, so may provide a more desirable solution than the current best (and tight under certain assumptions) $\frac{2}{3}$-approximation for such a stable matching. We also show that unfortunately, finding a maximum size weakly popular matching is NP-hard, even with one-sided ties and that assuming some complexity theoretic assumptions, the $\frac{3}{4}$-approximation bound is tight. Then, we study a more general model than weak-popularity, where for each edge, we can specify independently for both endpoints the size of improvement the endpoint needs to vote in favor of a new matching $N$. We show that even in this more general model, a so-called $\gamma$-popular matching always exists and that the same positive results still hold. Finally, we define an other, stronger variant of popularity, called super-popularity, where even a weak improvement is enough to vote in favor of a new matching. We show that for this case, even the existence problem is NP-hard.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (25)
  1. Popular matchings. SIAM Journal on Computing, 37(4):1030–1045, 2007.
  2. Matchings under preferences: Strength of stability and tradeoffs. ACM Transactions on Economics and Computation, 9(4):1–55, 2021.
  3. G. Csáji. A simple 1.5-approximation algorithm for a wide range of max-smti problems. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2304, 2023.
  4. Approximation algorithms for matroidal and cardinal generalizations of stable matching. In Symposium on Simplicity in Algorithms (SOSA), pages 103–113. SIAM, 2023.
  5. Á. Cseh. Popular matchings. Trends in computational social choice, 105(3), 2017.
  6. Popular matchings with two-sided preferences and one-sided ties. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 31(4):2348–2377, 2017.
  7. Tight inapproximability of minimum maximal matching on bipartite graphs and related problems. In Approximation and Online Algorithms: 19th International Workshop, WAOA 2021, Lisbon, Portugal, September 6–10, 2021, Revised Selected Papers, pages 48–64. Springer, 2022.
  8. Two-sided popular matchings in bipartite graphs with forbidden/forced elements and weights. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.01478, 2018.
  9. Popular matchings and limits to tractability. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 2790–2809. SIAM, 2019.
  10. D. Gale and L. S. Shapley. College admissions and the stability of marriage. The American Mathematical Monthly, 69(1):9–15, 1962.
  11. P. Gärdenfors. Match making: assignments based on bilateral preferences. Behavioral Science, 20(3):166–173, 1975.
  12. Popular matching in roommates setting is np-hard. ACM Transactions on Computation Theory (TOCT), 13(2):1–20, 2021.
  13. Inapproximability results on stable marriage problems. In LATIN 2002: Theoretical Informatics: 5th Latin American Symposium Cancun, Mexico, April 3–6, 2002 Proceedings 5, pages 554–568. Springer, 2002.
  14. Improved approximation of the stable marriage problem. In Algorithms-ESA 2003: 11th Annual European Symposium, Budapest, Hungary, September 16-19, 2003. Proceedings 11, pages 266–277. Springer, 2003.
  15. C.-C. Huang and T. Kavitha. Popular matchings in the stable marriage problem. Information and Computation, 222:180–194, 2013.
  16. R. W. Irving. Stable marriage and indifference. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 48(3):261–272, 1994.
  17. Stable marriage with incomplete lists and ties. In Proc. 26th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 1999), pages 443–452. Springer, 1999.
  18. N. Kamiyama. Popular matchings with two-sided preference lists and matroid constraints. Theoretical Computer Science, 809:265–276, 2020.
  19. T. Kavitha. A size-popularity tradeoff in the stable marriage problem. SIAM Journal on Computing, 43(1):52–71, 2014.
  20. Z. Király. Linear time local approximation algorithm for maximum stable marriage. In Proc. Second International Workshop on Matching Under Preferences (MATCH-UP 2012), page 99, 2012.
  21. D. Manlove. Algorithmics of matching under preferences, volume 2. World Scientific, 2013.
  22. Hard variants of stable marriage. Theoretical Computer Science, 276(1-2):261–279, 2002.
  23. E. McDermid. A 3/2-approximation algorithm for general stable marriage. In Proc. 36th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2009), pages 689–700. Springer, 2009.
  24. H. Yanagisawa. Approximation algorithms for stable marriage problems. PhD thesis, Kyoto University, Graduate School of Informatics, 2007.
  25. Y. Yokoi. An approximation algorithm for maximum stable matching with ties and constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03076, 2021.
Citations (1)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.