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