Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
169 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

Geometric Bipartite Matching is in NC (2405.18833v1)

Published 29 May 2024 in cs.CG and cs.CC

Abstract: In this work, we study the parallel complexity of the Euclidean minimum-weight perfect matching (EWPM) problem. Here our graph is the complete bipartite graph $G$ on two sets of points $A$ and $B$ in $\mathbb{R}2$ and the weight of each edge is the Euclidean distance between the corresponding points. The weighted perfect matching problem on general bipartite graphs is known to be in RNC [Mulmuley, Vazirani, and Vazirani, 1987], and Quasi-NC [Fenner, Gurjar, and Thierauf, 2016]. Both of these results work only when the weights are of $O(\log n)$ bits. It is a long-standing open question to show the problem to be in NC. First, we show that for EWPM, a linear number of bits of approximation is required to distinguish between the minimum-weight perfect matching and other perfect matchings. Next, we show that the EWPM problem that allows up to $\frac{1}{poly(n)}$ additive error, is in NC.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (29)
  1. Deterministic, near-linear ε𝜀\varepsilonitalic_ε-approximation algorithm for geometric bipartite matching. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 1052–1065, 2022.
  2. Efficient algorithms for geometric partial matching. In 35th International Symposium on Computational Geometry (SoCG 2019). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2019.
  3. Vertical decomposition of shallow levels in 3-dimensional arrangements and its applications. In Proceedings of the eleventh annual symposium on Computational geometry, pages 39–50, 1995.
  4. Planar graph perfect matching is in NC. J. ACM, 67(4):21:1–21:34, 2020.
  5. Qi Cheng and Yu-Hsin Li. Finding the smallest gap between sums of square roots. In Alejandro López-Ortiz, editor, LATIN 2010: Theoretical Informatics, pages 446–455, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010. Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  6. On the linear independence of roots. International Journal of Number Theory, 05:161–171, 2007.
  7. Matching and multidimensional matching in chordal and strongly chordal graphs. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 84(1-3):79–91, 1998.
  8. Deterministically isolating a perfect matching in bipartite planar graphs. Theory of Computing Systems, 47(3):737–757, 2010.
  9. Jack Edmonds. Paths, trees, and flowers. Canadian Journal of mathematics, 17:449–467, 1965.
  10. An improved bound on sums of square roots via the subspace theorem. CoRR, abs/2312.02057, 2023. To appear in SoCG 2024. arXiv:2312.02057.
  11. Bipartite perfect matching is in quasi-NC. In Proceedings of the forty-eighth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 754–763, 2016.
  12. The matching problem for bipartite graphs with polynomially bounded permanents is in NC. In 28th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1987), pages 166–172. IEEE, 1987.
  13. Using interior-point methods for fast parallel algorithms for bipartite matching and related problems. SIAM J. Comput., 21(1):140–150, feb 1992.
  14. An n^5/2 algorithm for maximum matchings in bipartite graphs. SIAM Journal on computing, 2(4):225–231, 1973.
  15. Constructing a perfect matching is in random NC. In Proceedings of the seventeenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 22–32, 1985.
  16. László Lovász. On determinants, matchings, and random algorithms. In FCT, volume 79, pages 565–574, 1979.
  17. Aleksander Madry. Navigating central path with electrical flows: From flows to matchings, and back. In 2013 IEEE 54th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 253–262. IEEE, 2013.
  18. Matching is as easy as matrix inversion. In Proceedings of the nineteenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 345–354, 1987.
  19. Joseph O’Rourke. Advanced problem 6369. Amer. Math. Monthly, 88(10):769, 1981.
  20. Combinatorial optimization: algorithms and complexity. Courier Corporation, 1998.
  21. R Sharathkumar and Pankaj K Agarwal. Algorithms for the transportation problem in geometric settings. In Proceedings of the twenty-third annual ACM-SIAM symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 306–317. SIAM, 2012.
  22. R Sharathkumar. A sub-quadratic algorithm for bipartite matching of planar points with bounded integer coordinates. In Proceedings of the twenty-ninth annual symposium on Computational geometry, pages 9–16, 2013.
  23. The matching problem in general graphs is in quasi-NC. In 2017 IEEE 58th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 696–707. Ieee, 2017.
  24. The open problems project: problem 33 sum of square roots. https://topp.openproblem.net/p33. Accessed: 2010-09-30.
  25. Raghunath Tewari and NV Vinodchandran. Green’s theorem and isolation in planar graphs. Information and Computation, 215:1–7, 2012.
  26. Approximation algorithms for bipartite and non-bipartite matching in the plane. In SODA, volume 99, pages 805–814, 1999.
  27. Kasturi R Varadarajan. A divide-and-conquer algorithm for min-cost perfect matching in the plane. In Proceedings 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (Cat. No. 98CB36280), pages 320–329. IEEE, 1998.
  28. A deterministic almost-linear time algorithm for minimum-cost flow. In 2023 IEEE 64th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 503–514. IEEE, 2023.
  29. Bipartite matching in nearly-linear time on moderately dense graphs. In 2020 IEEE 61st Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 919–930. IEEE, 2020.

Summary

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

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now
X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets