On the Online Weighted Non-Crossing Matching Problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We introduce and study the weighted version of an online matching problem in the Euclidean plane with non-crossing constraints: 2n points with non-negative weights arrive online, and an algorithm can match an arriving point to one of the unmatched previously arrived points. In the vanilla model, the decision on how to match (if at all) a newly arriving point is irrevocable. The goal is to maximize the total weight of matched points under the constraint that straight-line segments corresponding to the edges of the matching do not intersect. The unweighted version of the problem was introduced in the offline setting by Atallah in 1985, and this problem became a subject of study in the online setting with and without advice in several recent papers. We observe that deterministic online algorithms cannot guarantee a non-trivial competitive ratio for the weighted problem. We study various regimes of the problem which permit non-trivial online algorithms. In particular, when weights are restricted to the interval [1, U] we give a deterministic algorithm achieving competitive ratio Ω(2^{-2√{log U}}). We also prove that deterministic online algorithms cannot achieve competitive ratio better than O (2^{-√{log U}}). Interestingly, we establish that randomization alone suffices to achieve competitive ratio 1/3 even when there are no restrictions on the weights. Additionally, if one allows an online algorithm to revoke acceptances, then one can achieve a competitive ratio ≈ 0.2862 deterministically for arbitrary weights. We also establish a lower bound on the competitive ratio of randomized algorithms in the unweighted setting, and improve the best-known bound on advice complexity to achieve a perfect 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".