Rank Maximal Matchings -- Structure and Algorithms

Let G = (A U P, E) be a bipartite graph where A denotes a set of agents, P denotes a set of posts and ranks on the edges denote preferences of the agents over posts. A matching M in G is rank-maximal if it matches the maximum number of applicants to their top-rank post, subject to this, the maximum number of applicants to their second rank post and so on. In this paper, we develop a switching graph characterization of rank-maximal matchings, which is a useful tool that encodes all rank-maximal matchings in an instance. The characterization leads to simple and efficient algorithms for several interesting problems. In particular, we give an efficient algorithm to compute the set of rank-maximal pairs in an instance. We show that the problem of counting the number of rank-maximal matchings is #P-Complete and also give an FPRAS for the problem. Finally, we consider the problem of deciding whether a rank-maximal matching is popular among all the rank-maximal matchings in a given instance, and give an efficient algorithm for the problem

Popular matchings: structure and algorithms

An instance of the popular matching problem (POP-M) consists of a set of applicants and a set of posts. Each applicant has a preference list that strictly ranks a subset of the posts. A matching M of applicants to posts is popular if there is no other matching M' such that more applicants prefer M' to M than prefer M to M'. This paper provides a characterization of the set of popular matchings for an arbitrary POP-M instance in terms of a structure called the switching graph, a directed graph computable in linear time from the preference lists. We show that the switching graph can be exploited to yield efficient algorithms for a range of associated problems, including the counting and enumeration of the set of popular matchings and computing popular matchings that satisfy various additional optimality criteria. Our algorithms for computing such optimal popular matchings improve those described in a recent paper by Kavitha and Nasre

Manipulation Strategies for the Rank Maximal Matching Problem

We consider manipulation strategies for the rank-maximal matching problem. In the rank-maximal matching problem we are given a bipartite graph $G = (A \cup P, E)$ such that $A$ denotes a set of applicants and $P$ a set of posts. Each applicant $a \in A$ has a preference list over the set of his neighbours in $G$, possibly involving ties. Preference lists are represented by ranks on the edges - an edge $(a,p)$ has rank $i$, denoted as $rank(a,p)=i$, if post $p$ belongs to one of $a$'s $i$-th choices. A rank-maximal matching is one in which the maximum number of applicants is matched to their rank one posts and subject to this condition, the maximum number of applicants is matched to their rank two posts, and so on. A rank-maximal matching can be computed in $O(\min(c \sqrt{n},n) m)$ time, where $n$ denotes the number of applicants, $m$ the number of edges and $c$ the maximum rank of an edge in an optimal solution. A central authority matches applicants to posts. It does so using one of the rank-maximal matchings. Since there may be more than one rank- maximal matching of $G$, we assume that the central authority chooses any one of them randomly. Let $a_1$ be a manipulative applicant, who knows the preference lists of all the other applicants and wants to falsify his preference list so that he has a chance of getting better posts than if he were truthful. In the first problem addressed in this paper the manipulative applicant $a_1$ wants to ensure that he is never matched to any post worse than the most preferred among those of rank greater than one and obtainable when he is truthful. In the second problem the manipulator wants to construct such a preference list that the worst post he can become matched to by the central authority is best possible or in other words, $a_1$ wants to minimize the maximal rank of a post he can become matched to

Matching under Preferences

Matching theory studies how agents and/or objects from different sets can be matched with each other while taking agents\u2019 preferences into account. The theory originated in 1962 with a celebrated paper by David Gale and Lloyd Shapley (1962), in which they proposed the Stable Marriage Algorithm as a solution to the problem of two-sided matching. Since then, this theory has been successfully applied to many real-world problems such as matching students to universities, doctors to hospitals, kidney transplant patients to donors, and tenants to houses. This chapter will focus on algorithmic as well as strategic issues of matching theory. Many large-scale centralized allocation processes can be modelled by matching problems where agents have preferences over one another. For example, in China, over 10 million students apply for admission to higher education annually through a centralized process. The inputs to the matching scheme include the students\u2019 preferences over universities, and vice versa, and the capacities of each university. The task is to construct a matching that is in some sense optimal with respect to these inputs. Economists have long understood the problems with decentralized matching markets, which can suffer from such undesirable properties as unravelling, congestion and exploding offers (see Roth and Xing, 1994, for details). For centralized markets, constructing allocations by hand for large problem instances is clearly infeasible. Thus centralized mechanisms are required for automating the allocation process. Given the large number of agents typically involved, the computational efficiency of a mechanism's underlying algorithm is of paramount importance. Thus we seek polynomial-time algorithms for the underlying matching problems. Equally important are considerations of strategy: an agent (or a coalition of agents) may manipulate their input to the matching scheme (e.g., by misrepresenting their true preferences or underreporting their capacity) in order to try to improve their outcome. A desirable property of a mechanism is strategyproofness, which ensures that it is in the best interests of an agent to behave truthfully

The stable roommates problem with globally-ranked pairs

We introduce a restriction of the stable roommates problem in which roommate pairs are ranked globally. In contrast to the unrestricted problem, weakly stable matchings are guaranteed to exist, and additionally, they can be found in polynomial time. However, it is still the case that strongly stable matchings may not exist, and so we consider the complexity of finding weakly stable matchings with various desirable properties. In particular, we present a polynomial-time algorithm to find a rank-maximal (weakly stable) matching. This is the first generalization of an algorithm due to [Irving et al. 06] to a nonbipartite setting. Also, we describe several hardness results in an even more restricted setting for each of the problems of finding weakly stable matchings that are of maximum size, are egalitarian, have minimum regret, and admit the minimum number of weakly blocking pairs

Profile-Based Optimal Matchings in the Student-Project Allocation Problem

In the Student/Project Allocation problem (spa) we seek to assign students to individual or group projects offered by lecturers. Students provide a list of projects they find acceptable in order of preference. Each student can be assigned to at most one project and there are constraints on the maximum number of students that can be assigned to each project and lecturer. We seek matchings of students to projects that are optimal with respect to profile, which is a vector whose rth component indicates how many students have their rth-choice project. We present an efficient algorithm for finding agreedy maximum matching in the spa context – this is a maximum matching whose profile is lexicographically maximum. We then show how to adapt this algorithm to find a generous maximum matching – this is a matching whose reverse profile is lexicographically minimum. Our algorithms involve finding optimal flows in networks. We demonstrate how this approach can allow for additional constraints, such as lecturer lower quotas, to be handled flexibly