skip to main content
10.1145/3564246.3585231acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesstocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Sublinear Time Algorithms and Complexity of Approximate Maximum Matching

Published:02 June 2023Publication History

ABSTRACT

Sublinear time algorithms for approximating maximum matching size have long been studied. Much of the progress over the last two decades on this problem has been on the algorithmic side. For instance, an algorithm of [Behnezhad; FOCS’21] obtains a 1/2-approximation in O(n) time for n-vertex graphs. A more recent algorithm by [Behnezhad, Roghani, Rubinstein, and Saberi; SODA’23] obtains a slightly-better-than-1/2 approximation in O(n1+є) time (for arbitrarily small constant ε>0). On the lower bound side, [Parnas and Ron; TCS’07] showed 15 years ago that obtaining any constant approximation of maximum matching size requires Ω(n) time. Proving any super-linear in n lower bound, even for (1−є)-approximations, has remained elusive since then.

In this paper, we prove the first super-linear in n lower bound for this problem. We show that at least n1.2 − o(1) queries in the adjacency list model are needed for obtaining a (2/3 + Ω(1))-approximation of the maximum matching size. This holds even if the graph is bipartite and is promised to have a matching of size Θ(n). Our lower bound argument builds on techniques such as correlation decay that to our knowledge have not been used before in proving sublinear time lower bounds.

We complement our lower bound by presenting two algorithms that run in strongly sublinear time of n2−Ω(1). The first algorithm achieves a (2/3−ε)-approximation (for any arbitrarily small constant ε>0); this significantly improves prior close-to-1/2 approximations. Our second algorithm obtains an even better approximation factor of (2/3+Ω(1)) for bipartite graphs. This breaks 2/3-approximation which has been a barrier in various settings of the matching problem, and importantly shows that our n1.2−o(1) time lower bound for (2/3+Ω(1))-approximations cannot be improved all the way to n2−o(1).

References

  1. Amir Abboud and Virginia Vassilevska Williams. 2014. Popular Conjectures Imply Strong Lower Bounds for Dynamic Problems. In 55th IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2014, Philadelphia, PA, USA, October 18-21, 2014. 434–443. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Sepehr Assadi and Soheil Behnezhad. 2021. Beating Two-Thirds For Random-Order Streaming Matching. In 48th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, ICALP 2021, July 12-16, 2021, Glasgow, Scotland (Virtual Conference), Nikhil Bansal, Emanuela Merelli, and James Worrell (Eds.) (LIPIcs, Vol. 198). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 19:1–19:13. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Sepehr Assadi and Aaron Bernstein. 2019. Towards a Unified Theory of Sparsification for Matching Problems. In 2nd Symposium on Simplicity in Algorithms, SOSA 2019, January 8-9, 2019, San Diego, CA, USA, Jeremy T. Fineman and Michael Mitzenmacher (Eds.) (OASIcs, Vol. 69). Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, 11:1–11:20. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Soheil Behnezhad. 2021. Improved Analysis of EDCS via Gallai-Edmonds Decomposition. CoRR, abs/2110.05746 (2021), arXiv:2110.05746. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Soheil Behnezhad. 2021. Time-Optimal Sublinear Algorithms for Matching and Vertex Cover. In 62nd IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2021, Denver, CO, USA, February 7-10, 2022. IEEE, 873–884. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Soheil Behnezhad. 2023. Dynamic Algorithms for Maximum Matching Size. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2023, to appear. SIAM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Soheil Behnezhad and Sanjeev Khanna. [n. d.]. New Trade-Offs for Fully Dynamic Matching via Hierarchical EDCS. 3529–3566. arxiv:https://epubs.siam.org/doi/pdf/10.1137/1.9781611977073.140. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Soheil Behnezhad, Mohammad Roghani, Aviad Rubinstein, and Amin Saberi. 2023. Beating Greedy Matching in Sublinear Time. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2023, to appear. SIAM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Aaron Bernstein. 2020. Improved Bounds for Matching in Random-Order Streams. In 47th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2020), Artur Czumaj, Anuj Dawar, and Emanuela Merelli (Eds.) (Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 168). Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany. 12:1–12:13. isbn:978-3-95977-138-2 issn:1868-8969 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Aaron Bernstein and Cliff Stein. 2015. Fully Dynamic Matching in Bipartite Graphs. In Automata, Languages, and Programming, Magnús M. Halldórsson, Kazuo Iwama, Naoki Kobayashi, and Bettina Speckmann (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg. 167–179. isbn:978-3-662-47672-7 Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Aaron Bernstein and Cliff Stein. 2016. Faster Fully Dynamic Matchings with Small Approximation Ratios. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Seventh Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA ’16). Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, USA. 692–711. isbn:9781611974331 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Sayan Bhattacharya, Peter Kiss, and Thatchaphol Saranurak. 2022. Sublinear Algorithms for (1.5 + ∊ )-Approximate Matching. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Sayan Bhattacharya, Peter Kiss, Thatchaphol Saranurak, and David Wajc. 2023. Dynamic Matching with Better-than-2 Approximation in Polylogarithmic Update Time. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Yu Chen, Sampath Kannan, and Sanjeev Khanna. 2020. Sublinear Algorithms and Lower Bounds for Metric TSP Cost Estimation. In 47th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming, ICALP 2020, July 8-11, 2020, Saarbrücken, Germany (Virtual Conference). 30:1–30:19. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Ashish Goel, Michael Kapralov, and Sanjeev Khanna. 2012. On the communication and streaming complexity of maximum bipartite matching. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2012, Kyoto, Japan, January 17-19, 2012, Yuval Rabani (Ed.). SIAM, 468–485. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Monika Henzinger, Sebastian Krinninger, Danupon Nanongkai, and Thatchaphol Saranurak. 2015. Unifying and Strengthening Hardness for Dynamic Problems via the Online Matrix-Vector Multiplication Conjecture. In Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Annual ACM on Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2015, Portland, OR, USA, June 14-17, 2015. 21–30. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. John E. Hopcroft and Richard M. Karp. 1973. An n^ 5/2 Algorithm for Maximum Matchings in Bipartite Graphs. SIAM J. Comput., 2, 4 (1973), 225–231. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Michael Kapralov, Slobodan Mitrovic, Ashkan Norouzi-Fard, and Jakab Tardos. 2020. Space Efficient Approximation to Maximum Matching Size from Uniform Edge Samples. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2020, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, January 5-8, 2020. 1753–1772. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Reut Levi, Ronitt Rubinfeld, and Anak Yodpinyanee. 2015. Local Computation Algorithms for Graphs of Non-Constant Degrees. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. 59–61. isbn:9781450335881 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Huy N. Nguyen and Krzysztof Onak. 2008. Constant-Time Approximation Algorithms via Local Improvements. In 49th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2008, October 25-28, 2008, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 327–336. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Krzysztof Onak, Dana Ron, Michal Rosen, and Ronitt Rubinfeld. 2012. A Near-Optimal Sublinear-Time Algorithm for Approximating the Minimum Vertex Cover Size. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 2012, Kyoto, Japan, January 17-19, 2012. 1123–1131. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Michal Parnas and Dana Ron. 2007. Approximating the Minimum Vertex Cover in Sublinear Time and a Connection to Distributed Algorithms. Theor. Comput. Sci., 381, 1-3 (2007), 183–196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Andrew Chi-Chih Yao. 1977. Probabilistic Computations: Toward a Unified Measure of Complexity (Extended Abstract). In 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, Providence, Rhode Island, USA, 31 October - 1 November 1977. IEEE Computer Society, 222–227. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Yuichi Yoshida, Masaki Yamamoto, and Hiro Ito. 2009. An improved constant-time approximation algorithm for maximum matchings. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC 2009, Bethesda, MD, USA, May 31 - June 2, 2009, Michael Mitzenmacher (Ed.). ACM, 225–234. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Sublinear Time Algorithms and Complexity of Approximate Maximum Matching

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      STOC 2023: Proceedings of the 55th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing
      June 2023
      1926 pages
      ISBN:9781450399135
      DOI:10.1145/3564246

      Copyright © 2023 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 2 June 2023

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate1,469of4,586submissions,32%

      Upcoming Conference

      STOC '24
      56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC 2024)
      June 24 - 28, 2024
      Vancouver , BC , Canada
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)154
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)14

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader