Matching with fairness constraints

(Shubh)

  • Input
    • A set of Items
    • A set of platform
    • Platforms have quota
    • Platforms define classes of items
    • Classes have quota
    • Classes are subsets of neighborhoods
    • Classes define fairness constraints
  • Goal: Match maximum number of items to platforms
  • Some natural examples
    • Committee - needs to have experts of all areas. Justifies why every platform has its own class
    • Projects - wasteful to have many employees with the same skill. studied previously for clustering and stuff
  • Polytime Algorithm for laminar classes
    • Classes do not have non trivial intersection - disjoint or containment
    • Maximum matching in laminar classes reduces to max flow
      • maximum matching in max flow in
  • There is a reductoin from independent set.
    • take a graph, add a node to it which represents a platform and connect all nodes
    • Then make 2 adjaced edges in the og graphs a part of a single class with quota 1
    • This means that even the 1 platform case is NP-Hard
  • approximation for classes
    • One platform exact algorithm by solving integer linear program
    • say we have classes, so for the nodes we define types which are just set of classes they are in, so we hvae classes, we make a variable for each and do ILP somehow
    • approximation for 1 platform, gives approximatoin
    • Find, approximation for each platform from remaining items
      • ????????????
    • If the number of classes is not known, but each item is contained in atleast many classes, by the greedy algorithm, we get approximation
  • Connection with Hypergraph Independent Set
    • strong independent set we get a approx
    • weak independent set we get a approx
  • Proportional bounds
    • For many items bound to the class, we want to allocate and
    • For disjoint classes approx takes time.
  • Future Direction
    • extending proportional fairness for non-disjoint classes
    • Incorporate item/platfrom preferences