Lecture 32: Bipartite Matchings and Reductions

COSC 311 Algorithms, Fall 2022

Overview

  1. Reductions
  2. Maximum Bipartite Matchings
  3. Reduction to Maximum Flow

Big Picture, So Far

Efficient algorithms for many problems:

  • sorting
  • graph problems
    • shortest paths
    • Eulerian circuits
    • minimum spanning trees
  • interval scheduling
  • sequence alignment
  • stable matching

All solved in $O(N^2)$ time ($N = $ size of instance)

A Question

What algorithmic problems cannot be solved efficiently?

  • What do we mean by “efficiently?”

  • How could we show that no algorithm can solve a problem efficiently?

    • What is an “algorithm,” anyway?

Last Unit of the Semester

Algorithmic Reality

For many practical problems:

  1. no efficient algorithm is known
  2. no proof that there isn’t an efficient algorithm

What do we do in this situation?

Reductions & NP Completeness

  • focus on relationships between problems
    • what does it mean for problem $A$ to be no harder/easier than problem $B$?

Algorithm Life

Observation. Algorithm design is challenging.

Lifestyle Choice. Avoid designing new algorithms (when you can get away with it).

How?

Idea. Given a new problem $A$, transform it into a problem $B$ you already know how to solve!

Example from homework: Scheduling contractors with bids

Reductions

Properties of nice transformations:

  1. transforming instances of $A$ to instances of $B$ can be done efficiently
  2. solution to $B$ instance can be efficiently transformed back to solution for $A$ instance

$1 + 2 = $ reduction from problem $A$ to problem $B$

Coarse notion of efficiency:

  • transformations can be done in time $O(N^c)$ for some constant $c$ ($N = $ input size)

In this case reduction is polynomial time reduction

  • write $A \leq_P B$ if polynomial time reduction from $A$ to $B$

Practical Value of Reductions

If $A \leq_P B$, then:

  • any efficient solution to $B$ gives an efficient solution to $A$
  • an improved algorithm for $B$ may give an improved algorithm for $A$

New Challenge

  • Given a problem $A$, solve it by reducing to another problem $B$ that you already have an algorithm for

Internship Assignments, Again

In a small world…

  • Three students: $a, b, c$
  • Three internships: $X, Y, Z$

Students/Internships have acceptability criteria (not preferences)

  • $a: Y, X$
  • $b: Z, X$
  • $c: Y, Z$
  • $X: a, b$
  • $Y: a, c$
  • $Z: b, c$

How to match students an internships?

Viewed as a Graph

Not Great Matching

Best Matching

Maximum Bipartite Matching (MBM)

Input:

  • bipartite graph $G = (V, E)$
  • $V$ partitioned into two disjoint sets, $S, T$
  • All edges are pairs $(s, t)$ with $s \in S$, $t \in T$

Output:

  • a matching $M = \{(s_1, t_1), (s_2, t_2), \ldots, (s_k, t_k)\}$
    • each $(s_i, t_i)$ is an edge in $G$
    • each $s \in S$, $t \in T$ appears in at most one pair
  • $M$ is a maximum matching: there is no matching of size $\ell > k$

Simplest Interesting Example

Does greedily adding edges to form a matching always result in a maximum matching?

Greedy Doesn’t Work

Issue: choosing an edge greedily/prematurely may block other edges that could result in a larger matching

  • does this sound familiar?

Adapting to Our New Lifestyle

Don’t design a new algorithm…

…instead make a reduction to…

Maximum Flow!

Reduction to Max-Flow

How to turn MBM into a flow problem?

A Max-Flow Instance

Formalizing the Reduction

Input:

  • Bipartite graph $G = (V, E)$ with $V = S \cup T$

Output:

  • Directed graph $G’ = (V’, E’)$
  • $V’ = V \cup \{s, t\}$
  • For $E’$:
    • direct all edges $(s_i, t_j) \in E$ from $S$ to $T$
    • add edges $(s, s_i)$ for all $s_i \in S$
    • add edges $(t_j, t)$ for all $t_j \in T$
    • all capacities are $1$

I Start with Bipartite Graph

II Form Max Flow Instance

III Solve Max Flow

IV Form Matching from Flow

A Technicality

Assume all flows are integral flows:

  • amount of flow across each edge is an integer

Note. Ford-Fulkerson always gives an integral flow.

Claim 1

If $G$ has a matching of size $k$, then $G’$ admits a flow $f$ of value $k$.

Claim 2

If $G’$ admits an integral flow of value $k$, then $G$ has a matching of size $k$.

Implications

  1. Value of the maximum flow in $G’$ equals the size maximum matching in $G$.
  2. Given a maximum (integral) flow in $G’$, we can find a maximum matching in $G$

Conclusions

  • Found a reduction from Maximum Bipartite Matching to Max Flow
  • Any (integral) Max Flow algorithm can be used to solve MBM
    • any improvement in Max Flow algorithms will yield a corresponding improvement in MBM solution
  • We showed MBM $\leq_P$ Max Flow
    • MBM is “no harder” than Max Flow
    • Max Flow is “no easier” than MBM

Next Time

Another view of $\leq_P$:

  • suppose $A$ is a “hard” problem
  • we show $A \leq_P B$
  • then we’ve established that $B$ is no easier than $A$
    • any efficient solution to $B$ would imply an efficient solution to $A$