Over three decades ago, Karp, Vazirani and Vazirani (STOC'90) introduced the online bipartite matching problem. They observed that deterministic algorithms' competitive ratio for this problem is no greater than $1/2$, and proved that randomized algorithms can do better. A natural question thus arises: \emph{how random is random}? i.e., how much randomness is needed to outperform deterministic algorithms? The \textsc{ranking} algorithm of Karp et al.~requires $\tilde{O}(n)$ random bits, which, ignoring polylog terms, remained unimproved. On the other hand, Pena and Borodin (TCS'19) established a lower bound of $(1-o(1))\log\log n$ random bits for any $1/2+\Omega(1)$ competitive ratio. We close this doubly-exponential gap, proving that, surprisingly, the lower bound is tight. In fact, we prove a \emph{sharp threshold} of $(1\pm o(1))\log\log n$ random bits for the randomness necessary and sufficient to outperform deterministic algorithms for this problem, as well as its vertex-weighted generalization. This implies the same threshold for the advice complexity (nondeterminism) of these problems. Similar to recent breakthroughs in the online matching literature, for edge-weighted matching (Fahrbach et al.~FOCS'20) and adwords (Huang et al.~FOCS'20), our algorithms break the barrier of $1/2$ by randomizing matching choices over two neighbors. Unlike these works, our approach does not rely on the recently-introduced OCS machinery, nor the more established randomized primal-dual method. Instead, our work revisits a highly-successful online design technique, which was nonetheless under-utilized in the area of online matching, namely (lossless) online rounding of fractional algorithms. While this technique is known to be hopeless for online matching in general, we show that it is nonetheless applicable to carefully designed fractional algorithms with additional (non-convex) constraints.
翻译:30年前, Karp, Vazirani 和 Vazirani (STOC'90) 引入了在线双部分匹配问题。 他们发现, 确定性算法对该问题的竞争比率不大于1/2美元, 并证明随机化算法可以做得更好。 因此自然产生的一个问题 : \ emph{ how 随机性 }? 也就是说, 要超越确定性算法, 需要多少随机性? Karp etal.; rrequires $\ tilde{O} (n) 随机值比值, 忽略多数级算法的参数。 而另一方面, Pena 和 Borodin (TCS'19) 随机化算法, $(1-o(1))\log\ nbrbrbrbrb 。 我们的常规化比值比值更大。 我们的这个比值比值范围大得多的区域, 证明, 直线性比值的比值更近。 事实上, 我们的直系的直线性算法 。