Consistency of the Matching Predicate

  • Dimitris Magos
  • Ioannis Mourtos
  • Leonidas Pitsoulis
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3955)


Let G(V,E) denote an undirected graph, V and E being the sets of its nodes and edges, respectively. A matching in G(V,E) is a subset of edges with no common endpoints. Finding a matching of maximum cardinality constitutes the maximum cardinality matching (MCM) problem. For a thorough theoretical discussion we refer to [6]. The MCM problem is of specific interest from a Constraint Programming (CP) point of view because it can model several logical constraints (predicates) like the all_different and the symmetric all_different predicates [7]. Thus, the definition of a maximum cardinality matching constraint provides a framework encompassing other predicates. Along this line of research, we define a global constraint with respect to the MCM and address the issue of consistency. Establishing hyper-arc consistency implies the identification of edges that cannot participate in any maximum cardinality matching. Evidently, this issue (also called filtering) is related to the methods developed for solving the problem. Solving this problem for bipartite graphs was common knowledge long before Edmonds proposed an algorithm for the non-bipartite case [3]. Regarding hyper-arc consistency, the problem has been resolved only for the bipartite case [1].


Rank Function Constraint Programming Global Constraint Independent System Maximum Cardinality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Costa, M.C.: Persistency in maximum cardinality bipartite matchings. Operations Research Letters 15, 143–149 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dechter, R.: Constraint Processing. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Edmonds, J.: Paths, trees and flowers. Canadian Journal of Mathematics 17, 449–467 (1965)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fekete, S.P., Firla, R.T., Spille, B.: Characterizing matchings as the intersection of matroids. Mathematical Methods of Operations Research 58, 319–329 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Korte, B., Vygen, J.: Combinatorial Optimization: Theory and Algorithms. Algorithms and Combinatorics, vol. 21. Springer, Heidelberg (1991)MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lovasz, L., Plummer, M.D.: Matching theory. Annals of Discrete Mathematics, vol. 29. North-Holland, Amsterdam (1986)MATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Régin, J.C.: The symmetric alldifferent constraint. In: Proceedings of the IJCAI 1999, pp. 420–425 (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dimitris Magos
    • 1
  • Ioannis Mourtos
    • 2
  • Leonidas Pitsoulis
    • 3
  1. 1.Technological Educational Institute of AthensAthensGreece
  2. 2.University of PatrasRion, PatrasGreece
  3. 3.Aristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations