We introduce the classified stable matching problem, a problem motivated by academic hiring. Suppose that a number of institutes are hiring faculty members from a pool of applicants. Both institutes and applicants have preferences over the other side. An institute classifies the applicants based on their research areas (or any other criterion), and, for each class, it sets a lower bound and an upper bound on the number of applicants it would hire in that class. The objective is to find a stable matching from which no group of participants has reason to deviate. Moreover, the matching should respect the upper lower bounds of the classes. In the first part of the paper, we study classified stable matching problems whose classifications belong to a fixed set of order types.'' We show that if the set consists entirely of downward forests, there is a polynomial-time algorithm; otherwise, it is NP-complete to decide the existence of a stable matching. In the second part, we investigate the problem using a polyhedral approach. Suppose that all classifications are laminar families and there is no lower bound. We propose a set of linear inequalities to describe stable matching polytope and prove that it is integral. This integrality allows us to find various optimal stable matchings using Ellipsoid algorithm. A further ramification of our result is the description of the stable matching polytope for the many-to-many (unclassified) stable matching problem. This answers an open question posed by Sethuraman, Teo and Qian.
Abraham, Irving and Manlove introduced the student-project allocation problem @cite_2 . It can be shown that in , if all classifications are just partitions over the applicants and there is no lower bound, our problem is equivalent to a special case of their problem. They posed the open question whether there is a polynomial time algorithm for their problem if there is lower bound on the projects (classes). Our result in Section 2 gives a partial positive answer.
@cite_2
2012500540 2949121341 1989262026 1923579438
We study the Student-Project Allocation problem (SPA), a generalisation of the classical Hospitals Residents problem (HR). An instance of SPA involves a set of students, projects and lecturers. Each project is offered by a unique lecturer, and both projects and lecturers have capacity constraints. Students have preferences over projects, whilst lecturers have preferences over students. We present two optimal linear-time algorithms for allocating students to projects, subject to the preference and capacity constraints. In particular, each algorithm finds a stable matching of students to projects. Here, the concept of stability generalises the stability definition in the HR context. The stable matching produced by the first algorithm is simultaneously best-possible for all students, whilst the one produced by the second algorithm is simultaneously best-possible for all lecturers. We also prove some structural results concerning the set of stable matchings in a given instance of SPA. The SPA problem model that we consider is very general and has applications to a range of different contexts besides student-project allocation. We study the problem of fair allocation for indivisible goods. We use the the maxmin share paradigm introduced by Budish as a measure for fairness. Procacciafirst (EC'14) were first to investigate this fundamental problem in the additive setting. In contrast to what real-world experiments suggest, they show that a maxmin guarantee (1- @math allocation) is not always possible even when the number of agents is limited to 3. While the existence of an approximation solution (e.g. a @math - @math allocation) is quite straightforward, improving the guarantee becomes subtler for larger constants. Procaccia provide a proof for existence of a @math - @math allocation and leave the question open for better guarantees. Our main contribution is an answer to the above question. We improve the result of ! to a @math factor in the additive setting. The main idea for our @math - @math allocation method is clustering the agents. To this end, we introduce three notions and techniques, namely reducibility, matching allocation, and cycle-envy-freeness, and prove the approximation guarantee of our algorithm via non-trivial applications of these techniques. Our analysis involves coloring and double counting arguments that might be of independent interest. One major shortcoming of the current studies on fair allocation is the additivity assumption on the valuations. We alleviate this by extending our results to the case of submodular, fractionally subadditive, and subadditive settings. More precisely, we give constant approximation guarantees for submodular and XOS agents, and a logarithmic approximation for the case of subadditive agents. Furthermore, we complement our results by providing close upper bounds for each class of valuation functions. Finally, we present algorithms to find such allocations for additive, submodular, and XOS settings in polynomial time. We demonstrate the impossibility of strongly polynomial algorithms for the allocation problem, in the comparison model and in the algebraic tree computation model, that follow from lower bound results. Consequently, there are no strongly polynomial algorithms for nonlinear (concave) separable optimization over a totally unimodular constraint matrix. This is in contrast to the case when the objective is linear. We present scaling-based algorithms that use a greedy algorithm as a subroutine. The algorithms are polynomial for the allocation problem and its extensions and are also optimal for the sample allocation problem and the generalized upper bounds allocation problem, in that the complexity meets the lower bound derived from the comparison model. For other extensions of the allocation problem the scaling-based algorithms presented here are the fastest known. These algorithms are also polynomial time algorithms for solving with e accuracy the allocation problem and its extension in continuous variables. The main aim of this note is to show that a polynomial-time algorithm for the scheduling problem 1|r j ; p j = p| ∑ Uj given by Carlier in (1981) is incorrect. In this problem we are given n jobs with release times and deadlines. All jobs have the same processing time p. The objective is to find a non-preemptive schedule that maximizes the number of jobs completed by their deadlines. The feasibility version of this problem, where we ask whether all jobs can meet their deadlines, has been studied thoroughly. Polynomial-time algorithms for this version were first found, independently, by Simons (1978) and Carlier (1981). A faster algorithm, with running time O(n log n), was subsequently given by (1981). The elegant feasibility algorithm of Carlier (1981) is based on dynamic programming and it processes jobs from left to right on the time-axis. For each time t, it constructs a partial schedule with jobs that complete at or before time t. Carlier also attempted to apply the same technique to design a polynomial-time algorithm for the maximization version, 1|r j ; p j = p| ∑ Uj , and claimed an O(n3 log n)-time algorithm. His result is now widely cited in the literature. We show, however, that this algorithm is not correct, by giving an instance on which it produces a sub-optimal schedule. Our counter-example can be, in fact, extended to support a broader claim, namely that even the general approach from Carlier (1981) cannot yield a polynomial-time algorithm. By this general approach we mean a class of algorithms that processes the input from left to right and make decisions based on the deadline ordering, and not their exact values. The question remains as to how efficiently can we solve the scheduling problem 1|r j ; p j = p| ∑ Uj . Baptiste (1999) gave an O(n7)-time algorithm for the more general version of this problem where jobs have weights. We show how to modify his algorithm to obtain a faster, O(n5)-time algorithm for the non-weighted case. These last two results are discussed only briefly in this note. The complete proofs can be found in the full version of this paper, see (2004).