We show that the ratio of matched individuals to blocking pairs grows linearly with the number of propose–accept rounds executed by the Gale–Shapley algorithm for the stable marriage problem. Consequently, the participants can arrive at an almost stable matching even without full information about the problem instance; for each participant, knowing only its local neighbourhood is enough. In distributed-systems parlance, this means that if each person has only a constant number of acceptable partners, an almost stable matching emerges after a constant number of synchronous communication rounds. We apply our results to give a distributed (2+e)-approximation algorithm for maximum-weight matching in bicoloured graphs and a centralised randomised constant-time approximation scheme for estimating the size of a stable matching.
Several works have addressed the last question with experiments. Quinn @cite_34 observes experimentally that a matching with only a fraction of unstable edges emerges long before the Gale--Shapley algorithm converges. Lu and Zheng @cite_13 propose a parallel algorithm that outperforms the Gale--Shapley algorithm in practice. Theorem gives theoretical support to the findings in Quinn @cite_34 . Theorem also addresses the concern expressed in the conclusions of Lu and Zheng @cite_13 where it is claimed that Most of existing parallel stable matching algorithms cannot guarantee a matching with a small number of unstable pairs within a given time interval.'' Theorem suggests that if the number of acceptable partners for each participant is bounded, the Gale--Shapley algorithm guarantees a small relative number of unstable edges.
@cite_34 @cite_13
1605637365 2004854811 2053079891 1978696336
This paper addresses strategies for the stable marriage problem. For the Gale-Shapley algorithm with men proposing, a classical theorem states that it is impossible for every cheating man to get a better partner than the one he gets if everyone is truthful. We study how to circumvent this theorem and incite men to cheat. First we devise coalitions in which a nonempty subset of the liars get better partners and no man is worse off than before. This strategy is limited in that not everyone in the coalition has the incentive to falsify his list. In an attempt to rectify this situation we introduce the element of randomness, but the theorem shows surprising robustness: it is impossible that every liar has a chance to improve the rank of his partner while no one gets hurt. To overcome the problem that some men lack the motivation to lie, we exhibit another randomized lying strategy in which every liar can expect to get a better partner on average, though with a chance of getting a worse one. Finally, we consider a variant scenario: instead of using the Gale-Shapley algorithm, suppose the stable matching is chosen at random. We present a modified form of the coalition strategy ensuring that every man in the coalition has a new probability distribution over partners which majorizes the original one. We show that the ratio of matched individuals to blocking pairs grows linearly with the number of propose–accept rounds executed by the Gale–Shapley algorithm for the stable marriage problem. Consequently, the participants can arrive at an almost stable matching even without full information about the problem instance; for each participant, knowing only its local neighbourhood is enough. In distributed-systems parlance, this means that if each person has only a constant number of acceptable partners, an almost stable matching emerges after a constant number of synchronous communication rounds. We apply our results to give a distributed (2+e)-approximation algorithm for maximum-weight matching in bicoloured graphs and a centralised randomised constant-time approximation scheme for estimating the size of a stable matching. We analyze the Gale-Shapley matching problem within the context of Rawlsian justice. Defining a fair matching algorithm by a set of 4 axioms (Gender Indifference, Peer Indifference, Maximin Optimality, and Stability), we show that not all preference profiles admit a fair matching algorithm, the reason being that even this set of minimal axioms is too strong in a sense. Because of conflict between Stability and Maximin Optimality, even the algorithm which generates the mutual agreement match, paradoxically, has no chance to be fair. We describe a fixed-point based approach to the theory of bipartite stable matchings. By this, we provide a common framework that links together seemingly distant results, like the stable marriage theorem of Gale and Shapley, the Mendelsohn-Dulmage theorem, the Kundu-Lawler theorem, Tarski's fixed-point theorem, the Cantor-Bernstein theorem, Pym's linking theorem, or the monochromatic path theorem of In this framework, we formulate a matroid-generalization of the stable marriage theorem and study the lattice structure of generalized stable matchings. Based on the theory of lattice polyhedra and blocking polyhedra, we extend results of Vande Vate and Rothblum on the bipartite stable matching polytope.