Quasi-popular Matchings, Optimality, and Extended Formulations

Yuri Faenza; Telikepalli Kavitha

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1904.05974

Quasi-popular Matchings, Optimality, and Extended Formulations

Yuri Faenza·Telikepalli Kavitha

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Let G = ((A,B),E) be an instance of the stable marriage problem where every vertex ranks its neighbors in a strict order of preference. A matching M in G is popular if M does not lose a head-to-head election against any matching. Popular matchings are a well-studied generalization of stable matchings, introduced with the goal of enlarging the set of admissible solutions, while maintaining a certain level of fairness. Every stable matching is a min-size popular matching. Unfortunately, when there are edge costs, it is NP-hard to find a popular matching of minimum cost -- even worse, the min-cost popular matching problem is hard to approximate up to any factor. Let opt be the cost of a min-cost popular matching. Our goal is to efficiently compute a matching of cost at most opt by paying the price of mildly relaxing popularity. Our main positive results are two bi-criteria algorithms that find in polynomial time a near-popular or quasi-popular matching of cost at most opt. Moreover, one of the algorithms finds a quasi-popular matching of cost at most that of a min-cost popular fractional matching, which could be much smaller than opt. Key to the other algorithm is a polynomial-size extended formulation for an integral polytope sandwiched between the popular and quasi-popular matching polytopes. We complement these results by showing that it is NP-hard to find a quasi-popular matching of minimum cost, and that both the popular and quasi-popular matching polytopes have near-exponential extension complexity. This version of the paper goes beyond the conference version [12] in the following two points: (i) the algorithm for finding a quasi-popular matching of cost at most that of a min-cost popular fractional matching is new; (ii) the proofs from Section 6.1 and Section 7.3 are now self-contained (the conference version used constructions from [10] to show these lower bounds).

Explore related subjects

cs.DS cs.CC math.CO

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Yuri Faenza, Telikepalli Kavitha. 2019-04-11. Quasi-popular Matchings, Optimality, and Extended Formulations. https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.05974

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Quasi-Monte Carlo Beyond Hardy-Krause II: $(1 + \varepsilon)n$ Samples Suffice

Numerical integration studies how well one can estimate the integral of a function $f$ over $[0,1)^d$ using $n$ sample points. The two classical methods, Monte Carlo (MC) and quasi-Monte Carlo (QMC), have complementary strengths and weaknesses, and a fundamental question is to design an approach that combines the benefits of both. Recently, building on the transference principle in discrepancy theory, Bansal and Jiang~\cite{BJ25a} gave a randomized QMC method that bridges MC and QMC guarantees using only i.i.d.\ samples. Their method also goes beyond the classical Koksma--Hlawka inequality: it achieves integration error $\widetilde{O}_d(\sigma_{\mathsf{SO}}(f)/n)$, where the smoothed-out variation $\sigma_{\mathsf{SO}}(f)$ can be substantially smaller than the Hardy--Krause variation that governs the classical bound. However, their algorithm requires $n^2$ i.i.d.\ samples as input, and this quadratic blowup is inherent to any method based on the transference principle. In this work, we bypass the quadratic blowup: for any constant $\varepsilon > 0$, we show that $(1+\varepsilon)n$ i.i.d.\ samples suffice to both obtain the beyond-Hardy--Krause guarantee of~\cite{BJ25a}, resolving an open problem posed there, and to produce low-discrepancy point sequences. Our algorithms are variants of the online Haar-thinning method of Dwivedi, Feldheim, Gurel-Gurevich, and Ramdas~\cite{DFG+19}.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2026

A deterministic $(1+\varepsilon)^n$ approximation for the permanent of a nonnegative matrix

For every fixed $0<\varepsilon\le1$, we give a deterministic strongly polynomial algorithm that, given a nonnegative matrix $A\in\mathbb{R}_{\ge0}^{n\times n}$, returns $Q$ satisfying $\operatorname{per} A\le Q\le(1+\varepsilon)^n\operatorname{per} A$.

cs.DS↗

arXiv2026

Single-Exponential Algorithms and a Polynomial Kernel for Strong Connectivity Augmentation

Strong Connectivity Augmentation (SCA) asks whether a directed acyclic graph can be made strongly connected by adding at most $k$ prescribed links whose total weight is within a given budget. Klinkby, Misra, and Saurabh (SODA 2021) gave an $O^*(2^{O(k\log k)})$-time algorithm and asked whether the problem admits a single-exponential parameterized algorithm and a polynomial kernel. We answer both questions affirmatively: SCA can be solved in $O^*(9^k)$ time and admits a polynomial kernel with $O(k^4)$ vertices and $O(k^{16})$ bits. For unweighted SCA, we obtain $O^*(4^k)$ time and a kernel with $O(k^3)$ vertices. Our algorithms are based on a particularly simple reduction to Strongly Connected Spanning Subgraph with two edge costs.

cs.DS↗