1 / 35

Weighted Matching

Weighted Matching. By: Ehsan Yazdi. Maximal Matching. We emphasize again that the term maximal matching means a matching of maximal cardinality, and that an unextendable matching is not necessarily maximal!

inga
Download Presentation

Weighted Matching

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Weighted Matching By: EhsanYazdi

  2. Maximal Matching • We emphasize again that the term maximal matching means a matching of maximal cardinality, and that an unextendable matching is not necessarily maximal! • A subtree T of G with root r is called an alternating tree if r is an exposed vertex and if every path starting at r is an alternating path. • The vertices in layers 0, 2, ... are called outer vertices, and the vertices in layers 1, 3, ... are inner vertices of T. Weighted Matchings 2/34

  3. Constructing Alternating Tree • Let x be a vertex in layer 2i, and let y≠mate(x) be a vertex adjacent to x. There are four possible cases: • Case 1: y is exposed (and not yet contained in T). Then we have found an augmenting path. • Case 2: y is not exposed, and neither y nor mate(y) are contained in T. Then we put y into layer 2i+1 and mate(y) into layer 2i+2. • Case 3: y is already contained in T as an inner vertex. Note that adding the edge xy to T would create a cycle of even length in T. we may ignore this case. • Case 4: y is already contained in T as an outer vertex. Note that adding the edge xy to T would create a cycle of odd length 2k+1 in T for which k edges belong to M. Such cycles are called blossoms; these blossoms -which cannot occur in the bipartite case- cause difficulties! Weighted Matchings 3/34

  4. Constructing Alternating Tree Weighted Matchings 4/34

  5. Maximal Matching for bipartite graphs • Let G=(V,E) be a bipartite graph with respect to the partition V=SŮS’, where S={1, ..., n} and S’={1’, ..., m’}; we assume n ≤ m. The algorithm constructs a maximal matching M described by an array mate. The function p(y) gives, for y∈S’, the vertex in S from which y was accessed. • Theorem 13.3.3. Let G=(V,E) be a bipartite graph with respect to the partition V=SŮS’. Then Algorithm BIMATCH determines with complexity O(|V||E|) a maximal matching of G. Weighted Matchings 5/34

  6. Bipartite Matching Algorithm Weighted Matchings 6/34

  7. Weighted Matching • Let G = (V,E) be a bipartite graph with weight function w:E→R. the weight w(M) of a matching M of G is defined by: w(M) = ∑e∈Mw(e). • A matching M is called a maximal weighted matching if w(M) ≥ w(M’) holds for every matching M’ of G. • A matching M is called a minimal weighted matching if w(M) ≤ w(M’) holds for every matching M’ of G. • We will restrict our attention to the problem of determining a perfect matching of maximal weight with respect to a nonnegative weight function w in a complete bipartite graph Kn,n. We call such a matching an optimal matching of (Kn,n, w). Weighted Matchings 7/34

  8. Weighted Matching • Let w be a nonnegative weight function for Kn,n. Then an optimal matching can be determined with complexity O(n3). It is the best known result for positive weight functions on complete bipartite graphs Kn,n. • The best known complexity for determining an optimal matching in a general bipartite graph is O(|V||E|+|V|2 log |V|) [FrTa87]. Weighted Matchings 8/34

  9. The Hungarian algorithm • An algorithm for finding an optimal matching in a complete bipartite graph. This algorithm is due to Kuhn and is based on ideas of Konig and Egervary, so that Kuhn named it the Hungarian algorithm. • Thus let G=(V,E) be the complete bipartite graph Kn,n with V=SŮT, where S = {1, ... , n} and T = {1’, ... , n’}, and with a nonnegative weight function w described by a matrix W = (wij) : the entry wij is the weight of the edge {i, j}. Weighted Matchings 9/34

  10. Node-Weighting • A pair of real vectors u = (u1, ... , un) and v = (v1, ... , vn) is called a feasible node-weighting if the following condition holds: ui + vj ≥ wij for all i,j =1, … , n (14.1) • We will denote the set of all feasible node-weightings (u, v) by F and the weight of an optimal matching by D. • Lemma 14.2.1. For each feasible node-weighting (u, v) and for each perfect matching M of G, we have: w(M) ≤ D ≤ ∑i=1n(ui + vi) (14.2) • If we can find a feasible node-weighting (u, v) and a perfect matching M for which equality holds in (14.2), then M has to be optimal. • It is always possible to achieve equality in (14.2); the Hungarian algorithm will give a constructive proof for this fact. Weighted Matchings 10/34

  11. Equality Subgraph • We now characterize the case of equality in (14.2). For a given feasible node-weighting (u, v), let Hu,v be the subgraph of G with vertex set V whose edges are precisely those ij for which ui+vj=wij holds; Hu,v is called the equality subgraph for (u, v). • Lemma 14.2.2. Let H = Hu,v be the equality subgraph for (u, v) ∈ F. Then ∑i=1n(ui + vi) = D holds if and only if H has a perfect matching. In this case, every perfect matching of H is an optimal matching for (G,w). Weighted Matchings 11/34

  12. Proof • : let ∑(ui+vi) = D and suppose that H does not contain a perfect matching. By Theorem 7.2.5, there exists a subset J of S with |Γ(J)| < |J|. • Put δ = min{ui + vj − wij : i ∈ J, j Γ(J)} • Then (u’, v’) is again a feasible node-weighting. contradiction: D ≤ ∑(u’i + v’j ) = ∑(ui + vj) − δ|J| + δ|Γ(J)| = D − δ(|J| − |Γ(J)|) < D. • Conversely, suppose that H contains a perfect matching M. Then ui+vj=wijfor each edge of M, and summing ui+vj=wij over all edges of M yields equality in (14.2). This argument also shows that every perfect matching of H is an optimal matching for (G,w). Weighted Matchings 12/34

  13. The Hungarian algorithm • The Hungarian algorithm starts with an arbitrary feasible node-weighting (u, v) ∈ F; usually:v1 = . . . = vn = 0ui= max{wij : j=1, ... , n} (for i = 1, . . . , n) • If the corresponding equality subgraph contains a perfect matching, our problem is solved. Otherwise, the algorithm determines a subset J of S with |Γ(J)| < |J| and changes the feasible node-weighting (u, v) in accordance with the proof of Lemma 14.2.2. • This decreases the sum ∑(ui +vi) and adds at least one new edge ij’ with i∈J and j‘ Γ(J) (with respect to Hu,v) to the new equality subgraphHu’,v’ . • This procedure is repeated until the partial matching in H is no longer maximal. Finally, we get a graph H containing a perfect matching M, which is an optimal matching of G as well. Weighted Matchings 13/34

  14. The Hungarian algorithm • The algorithm determines an optimal matching in G described by an array mate. • For extending the matchings and for changing (u, v), we use an appropriately labelled alternating tree in H. In the following algorithm, we keep a variable δj for each j ∈ T which may be viewed as a potential: δj is the current minimal value of ui+vj−wij. Moreover, p(j) denotes the first vertex i for which this minimal value is obtained. • We will use a procedure AUGMENT: Weighted Matchings 14/34

  15. The Hungarian algorithm Weighted Matchings 15/34

  16. The Hungarian algorithm Weighted Matchings 16/34

  17. Time complexity • Theorem 14.2.4. Hungarian Algorithm determines with complexity O(n3) an optimal matching for (G,w). • Let call all the operations executed during one iteration of the while-loop (4) to (39) a phase. • Obviously, there are exactly n phases. As updating the feasible node-weighting (u, v) and calling the procedure AUGMENT both need O(n) steps, these parts of a phase contribute at most O(n2) steps altogether. Note that each vertex is inserted into Q and examined in the inner while-loop at most once during each phase. The inner while-loop has complexity O(n), so that the algorithm consists of n phases of complexity O(n2), which yields a total complexity of O(n3) as asserted. Weighted Matchings 17/34

  18. Generalization • We will restrict our attention to the problem of determining a perfect matching of maximal weight with respect to a nonnegative weight function w in a complete bipartite graph Kn,n. We call such a matching an optimal matching of (Kn,n, w). • A maximal weighted matching cannot contain any edges of negative weight. Thus such edges are irrelevant in our context, so that we will usually assume w to be nonnegative. Weighted Matchings 18/34

  19. Generalization • A maximal weighted matching is not necessarily also a matching of maximal cardinality. Therefore we extend G to a complete bipartite graph by adding all missing edges e with weight w(e) = 0; then we may assume that a matching of maximal weight is a complete matching. • Similarly, we may also assume |S|=|T| by adding an appropriate number of vertices to the smaller of the two sets (if necessary), and by introducing further edges of weight 0. • If we should require a perfect matching of maximal weight in a bipartite graph containing edges of negative weight, we can add a sufficiently large constant to all weights first and thus reduce this case to the case of a nonnegative weight function. • Hence we may also treat the problem finding a perfect matching of minimal weight, by replacing w by −w. Weighted Matchings 19/34

  20. Circulation • Let G = (V,E) be a digraph; in general, we tacitly assume that G is connected. • A mapping f : E → R is called a circulation on G if it satisfies the flow conservation condition ∑e+=v f(e) = ∑e−=v f(e) for all v∊V . • Let b:E→R and c:E→R be two further mappings, where b(e) ≤ c(e) for all e∊E. One calls b(e) and c(e) the lower capacity and the upper capacity of the edge e, respectively. Then a circulation f is said to be feasible or legal (with respect to the given capacity constraints b and c) if (e) ≤ f(e) ≤ c(e) for all e∊E. Weighted Matchings 20/34

  21. Circulation • Let γ:E→R be a further mapping called the cost function. Then the cost of a circulation f (with respect to γ) is defined as γ(f) = ∑e∈Eγ(e)f(e) • A feasible circulation f is called optimal or a minimum cost circulation if γ(f) ≤ γ(g) holds for every feasible circulation g. Weighted Matchings 21/34

  22. Algorithm of Busacker and Gowen • Theorem 10.5.3. Let N=(G, c, s, t) be a flow network with integral capacity function c and nonnegative cost function γ. Then Algorithm OPTFLOW can be used to determine an optimal flow of value v with complexity O(v|V|2) or O(v|E|log|V|). Weighted Matchings 22/34

  23. Circulation & Max Flow • Max-flow problem: Let N = (G, c, s, t) be a flow network with a flow f of value w(f), and let G’ be the digraph obtained by adding the edge r = ts (return arc) to G. We extend the mappings c and f to G’ as follows: c(r) = ∞ and f(r) = w(f) • Setting b(e) = 0 for all edges e of G’, f is even feasible. • Conversely, every feasible circulation f on G’ yields a flow of value f(r) on G. • Cost function: γ(r) = −1 and γ(e) = 0 otherwise. • Then a flow f on N is maximal if and only if the corresponding circulation has minimal cost with respect to γ: maximal flows on N = (G, c, s, t) correspond to optimal circulations for (G’, b, c, γ). Weighted Matchings 23/34

  24. Circulation & Optimal Matching • Let w : E → R0+ be a weight function for the graph Kn,n. Suppose the maximal weight of all edges is C. • Construct a bipartite digraph G’ with vertex set S∪T, where S={1, … , n} and T={1, ... , n}, and adjoin two additional vertices s and t. The edges of G are all the (s, i), all the (i, j), and all the (j, t) with i ∈ S and j ∈ T. • All edges have lower capacity b(e)=0 and upper capacity c(e)=1. • Cost function: γ(s, i) = γ(j, t) = 0 and γ(i, j) = C-wij • We just need to find an optimal flow of value n in the flow network (G’, b, c, γ). Weighted Matchings 24/34

  25. Linear Programming • A linear programming problem (or, for short, an LP) is an optimization problem of the following kind: we want to maximize (or minimize) a linear objective function with respect to some given constraints which have the form of linear equalities or inequalities. • Formally: (LP) maximize x1c1 + . . . + xncn subject to ai1x1 + . . . + ainxn ≤ bi (i=1, … , m), xj ≥ 0 (j = 1, ... , n) • Concisely; A=(aij) (m×n), x=(x1, … , xn) and c=(c1, … , cn) : (LP) maximize cxT subject to AxT ≤ bT and x ≥ 0 Weighted Matchings 25/34

  26. Linear Programming • (LP) maximize cxT subject to AxT ≤ bTand x ≥ 0 • Adding conditions: x should be integral: integer linear programming problem (ILP) xi∈{0, 1} (for i=1, ... , n): zero-one linear program (ZOLP) • LP is a polynomial problem (e.g. ellipsoid algorithm of Khachiyan) • ILP and ZOLP are NP-Hard. Weighted Matchings 26/34

  27. Matchings & Linear Programs • Let G=(V,E) be a complete bipartite graph with a nonnegative weight function w. Then the optimal matchings of G are precisely the solutions of the following ZOLP: maximize ∑e∊E w(e)xe subject to xe∊{0, 1} for all e∊E and ∑e∈δ(v) xe =1 for all v∊V ( δ(v) denotes the set of edges incident with v) • An edge e is contained in the corresponding perfect matching iff xe=1. • xe∊{0, 1} can be replaced by xe∊ℤ and xe≥0. Weighted Matchings 27/34

  28. v1 e1 v3 e2 v2 0,1 1, 0 Matchings & Linear Programs • Using the incidence matrix A of G, we can write the ILP: maximize wxT subject to AxT=1T and x ≥ 0 (14.3) where x=(xe)e∊E∊ℤE Weighted Matchings 28/34

  29. Matchings & Linear Programs • If the set of all admissible vectors x∊ℝn for a given LP is bounded and nonempty, then all these vectors form a polytope. optimal solutions for the LP can always be found among the vectors corresponding to vertices of the polytope (though there may exist further optimal solutions) • Vertices of the polytope can be defined as those points at which an appropriate objective function achieves itsunique maximum over the polytope. • Incidence vectors of perfect matchings Mof G are vertices of the polytope in ℝEdefined by the constraints given in (14.3) Weighted Matchings 29/34

  30. Matchings & Linear Programs • Hoffman and Kruskal [HoKr56]:Let A be an integer matrix. If A is totally unimodular, then the vertices of the polytope { x: AxT=bT , x ≥ 0} are integral whenever b is integral. • Wiki: A totally unimodular matrix is a matrix for which every square non-singularsubmatrix is unimodular. A unimodular matrix M is a square integer matrix with determinant +1 or −1. Weighted Matchings 30/34

  31. Matchings & Linear Programs • Then the following four conditions together are sufficientfor A to be totally unimodular: • Every column of A contains at most two non-zero entries; • Every entry in A is 0, +1, or −1; • If two non-zero entries in a column of A have the same sign, then the row of one is in B, and the other in C; • If two non-zero entries in a column of A have opposite signs, then the rows of both are in B, or both in C. • For every bipartite graph G, the incidence matrix A of G is totally unimodular. Weighted Matchings 31/34

  32. Matchings & Linear Programs • Using the incidence matrix A of G, we can write the ILP: • maximize wxT subject to AxT=1T and x ≥ 0 where x=(xe)e∊E ∊ ℤE (14.3) • Incidence vectors of perfect matchings M of G are vertices of the polytope in ℝE defined by the constraints given in (14.3) • For every bipartite graph G, the incidence matrix A of G is totally unimodular. • Hoffman and Kruskal: If A is totally unimodular, then the vertices of the polytope { x: AxT=bT , x ≥ 0} are integral whenever b is integral. Weighted Matchings 32/34

  33. v1 e1 v3 e2 v2 0,1 1, 0 Matchings & Linear Programs • Theorem 14.3.4. Let A be the incidence matrix of a complete bipartite graph G=(V,E). Then the vertices of the polytope P={ x∊ℝE : AxT=1T , x ≥ 0}coincide with the incidence vectors of perfect matchings of G. Hence the optimal matchings are precisely those solutions of the LP (14.3) which correspond to vertices of P (for a given weight function). • ILP (14.3) would is equivalent to the corresponding LP and could be solved with one of the known algorithms for linear programs. Weighted Matchings 33/34

  34. Dual Linear Program • For any linear program (LP) maximize cxT subject to AxT ≤ bT and x ≥ 0the dual LP is the linear program (DP) minimize byT subject to AT yT ≥ cT and y ≥ 0where y = (y1, … , ym) • Strong duality theorem: Let x and y be admissible vectors for (LP) and (DP), respectively. Then one has cxT ≤ byTwith equality if and only if x and y are actually optimal solutions for their respective linear programs. • (LP) Maximize wxT subject to AxT ≤ 1T and x ≥ 0 • (DP) Minimize 1yT subject to ATyT ≥ wT and y ≥ 0 Weighted Matchings 34/34

  35. Thanks for attention Questions?

More Related