An Experimental Study of Algorithms for Online Bipartite Matching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We perform an experimental study of algorithms for online bipartite matching under the known i.i.d input model with integral types. In the last decade, there has been substantial effort in designing complex algorithms to improve worst-case approximation ratios. Our goal is to determine how these algorithms perform on more practical instances rather than worst-case instances. In particular, we are interested in whether the ranking of the algorithms by their worst-case performance is consistent with the ranking of the algorithms by their average-case/practical performance. We are also interested in whether preprocessing times and implementation difficulties that are introduced by these algorithms are justified in practice. To that end, we evaluate these algorithms on different random inputs as well as real-life instances obtained from publicly available repositories. We compare these algorithms against several simple greedy-style algorithms. Most of the complex algorithms in the literature are presented as being non-greedy (i.e., an algorithm can intentionally skip matching a node that has available neighbors) to simplify the analysis. Every such algorithm can be turned into a greedy one without hurting its worst-case performance. On our benchmarks, non-greedy versions of these algorithms perform much worse than their greedy versions. Greedy versions perform about as well as the simplest greedy algorithm by itself. This, together with our other findings, suggests that simplest greedy algorithms are competitive with the state-of-the-art worst-case algorithms for online bipartite matching on many average-case and practical input families. Greediness is by far the most important property of online algorithms for bipartite matching.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".