Advertisement

Popular Matchings in the Capacitated House Allocation Problem

  • David F. Manlove
  • Colin T. S. Sng
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4168)

Abstract

We consider the problem of finding a popular matching in the Capacitated House Allocation problem (CHA). An instance of CHA involves a set of agents and a set of houses. Each agent has a preference list in which a subset of houses are ranked in strict order, and each house may be matched to a number of agents that must not exceed its capacity. A matching M is popular if there is no other matching M′ such that the number of agents who prefer their allocation in M′ to that in M exceeds the number of agents who prefer their allocation in M to that in M′. Here, we give an \(O(\sqrt{C}n_1+m)\) algorithm to determine if an instance of CHA admits a popular matching, and if so, to find a largest such matching, where C is the total capacity of the houses, n 1 is the number of agents and m is the total length of the agents’ preference lists. For the case where preference lists may contain ties, we give an \(O((\sqrt{C}+n_1)m)\) algorithm for the analogous problem.

Keywords

Bipartite Graph Maximum Match Preference List Strict Order Bipartite Match 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdulkadiroǧlu, A., Sönmez, T.: Random serial dictatorship and the core from random endowments in house allocation problems. Econometrica 66, 689–701 (1998)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abraham, D.J., Cechlárová, K., Manlove, D.F., Melhorn, K.: Pareto optimality in house allocation problems. In: Fleischer, R., Trippen, G. (eds.) ISAAC 2004. LNCS, vol. 3341, pp. 3–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abraham, D.J., Irving, R.W., Kavitha, T., Melhorn, K.: Popular matchings. In: Proceedings of SODA 2005, pp. 424–432. ACM-SIAM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abraham, D.J., Kavitha, T.: Dynamic matching markets and voting paths. In: Arge, L., Freivalds, R. (eds.) SWAT 2006. LNCS, vol. 4059, pp. 65–76. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gabow, H.N.: An efficient reduction technique for degree-constrained subgraph and bidirected network flow problems. In: Proceedings of STOC 1983, pp. 448–456 (1983)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gärdenfors, P.: Match making: Assignments based on bilateral preferences. Behavioural Sciences 20, 166–173 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Irving, R.W., Kavitha, T., Melhorn, K., Michail, D., Paluch, K.: Rank-maximal matchings. In: Proceedings of SODA 2004, pp. 68–75. ACM-SIAM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mahdian, M.: Random popular matchings. In: Proceedings of EC 2006, pp. 238–242. ACM-SIAM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Manlove, D.F., Sng, C.T.S.: Popular matchings in the Capacitated House Allocation Problem. Technical Report TR-2006-222, University of Glasgow, Department of Computing Science (June 2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mestre, J.: Weighted popular matchings. In: Bugliesi, M., Preneel, B., Sassone, V., Wegener, I. (eds.) ICALP 2006. LNCS, vol. 4052. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pulleyblank, W.R.: Matchings and Extensions. In: Graham, R.L., Grötschel, M., Lovász, L. (eds.) The Handbook of Combinatorics, ch. 3, vol. 1, pp. 179–232. North Holland, Amsterdam (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roth, A.E.: The evolution of the labor market for medical interns and residents: A case study in game theory. Journal of Political Economy 92, 991–1016 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • David F. Manlove
    • 1
  • Colin T. S. Sng
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations