Further Approximations for Demand Matching: Matroid Constraints and Minor-Closed Graphs

Authors Sara Ahmadian, Zachary Friggstad

Thumbnail PDF


  • Filesize: 0.64 MB
  • 13 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Sara Ahmadian
Zachary Friggstad

Cite AsGet BibTex

Sara Ahmadian and Zachary Friggstad. Further Approximations for Demand Matching: Matroid Constraints and Minor-Closed Graphs. In 44th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2017). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 80, pp. 55:1-55:13, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2017)


We pursue a study of the Generalized Demand Matching problem, a common generalization of the b-Matching and Knapsack problems. Here, we are given a graph with vertex capacities, edge profits, and asymmetric demands on the edges. The goal is to find a maximum-profit subset of edges so the demands of chosen edges do not violate the vertex capacities. This problem is APX-hard and constant-factor approximations are already known. Our main results fall into two categories. First, using iterated relaxation and various filtering strategies, we show with an efficient rounding algorithm that if an additional matroid structure M is given and we further only allow sets that are independent in M, the natural LP relaxation has an integrality gap of at most 25/3. This can be further improved in various special cases, for example we improve over the 15-approximation for the previously- studied Coupled Placement problem [Korupolu et al. 2014] by giving a 7-approximation. Using similar techniques, we show the problem of computing a minimum-cost base in M satisfying vertex capacities admits a (1,3)-bicriteria approximation: the cost is at most the optimum and the capacities are violated by a factor of at most 3. This improves over the previous (1,4)-approximation in the special case that M is the graphic matroid over the given graph [Fukanaga and Nagamochi, 2009]. Second, we show Demand Matching admits a polynomial-time approximation scheme in graphs that exclude a fixed minor. If all demands are polynomially-bounded integers, this is somewhat easy using dynamic programming in bounded-treewidth graphs. Our main technical contribution is a sparsification lemma that allows us to scale the demands of some items to be used in a more intricate dynamic programming algorithm, followed by some randomized rounding to filter our scaled-demand solution to one whose original demands satisfy all constraints.
  • Approximation Algorithms
  • Column-Restricted Packing
  • Demand Matching
  • Matroids
  • Planar Graphs


  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    PDF Downloads


  1. Aris Anagnostopoulos, Fabrizio Grandoni, Stefano Leonardi, and Andreas Wiese. A mazing 2+ε approximation for unsplittable flow on a path. In Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 26-41. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2014. Google Scholar
  2. Nikhil Bansal, Nitish Korula, Viswanath Nagarajan, and Aravind Srinivasan. Solving packing integer programs via randomized rounding with alterations. Theory of Computing, 8(1):533-565, 2012. Google Scholar
  3. Gruia Calinescu, Amit Chakrabarti, Howard Karloff, and Yuval Rabani. An improved approximation algorithm for resource allocation. ACM Transactions on Algorithms, 7, 2011. Google Scholar
  4. Erik D. Demaine, Mohammad Taghi Hajiaghayi, and Ken-ichi Kawarabayashi. Algorithmic graph minor theory: Decomposition, approximation, and coloring. In Proceedings of the Forty-sixth Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 637-646. IEEE, 2005. Google Scholar
  5. Takuro Fukunaga and Hiroshi Nagamochi. Network design with weighted degree constraints. Discrete Optimization, 7(4):246-255, 2010. Google Scholar
  6. Georgii Gens and Evgenii Levner. Complexity of approximation algorithms for combinatorial problems: a survey. ACM SIGACT News, 12(3):52-65, 1980. Google Scholar
  7. Mohammad Ghodsi, Hamid Mahini, Kian Mirjalali, Shayan Oveis Gharan, Morteza Zadimoghaddam, et al. Spanning trees with minimum weighted degrees. Information Processing Letters, 104(3):113-116, 2007. Google Scholar
  8. Johan Håstad. Clique is hard to approximate within n^1-ε. Acta Mathematica, 182(1):105-142, 1999. Google Scholar
  9. Madhukar Korupolu, Adam Meyerson, Rajmohan Rajaraman, and Brian Tagiku. Coupled and k-sided placements: generalizing generalized assignment. Mathematical Programming, 154(1-2):493-514, 2015. Google Scholar
  10. Lap Chi Lau, Ramamoorthi Ravi, and Mohit Singh. Iterative methods in combinatorial optimization, volume 46. Cambridge University Press, 2011. Google Scholar
  11. Michael J. Magazine and Maw-Sheng Chern. A note on approximation schemes for multidimensional knapsack problems. Mathematics of Operations Research, 9(2):244-247, 1984. Google Scholar
  12. Michael Mitzenmacher and Eli Upfal. Probability and computing: Randomized algorithms and probabilistic analysis. Cambridge University Press, 2005. Google Scholar
  13. Ojas Parekh. Iterative packing for demand and hypergraph matching. In International Conference on Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization, pages 349-361. Springer, 2011. Google Scholar
  14. Alexander Schrijver. Combinatorial Optimization: Polyhedra and Efficiency. Springer, 2003. Google Scholar
  15. Bruce Shepherd and Adrian Vetta. The demand-matching problem. Mathematics of Operations Research, 32(3):563-578, 2007. Google Scholar
  16. Mohit Singh and Lap Chi Lau. Approximating minimum bounded degree spanning trees to within one of optimal. In Proceedings of the Thirty-eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 661-670. ACM, 2007. Google Scholar
  17. Mohit Singh and Hehui Wu. Nearly tight linear programming bounds for demand matching in bipartite graphs. http://cgi.cs.mcgill.ca/~hehui/paper/Demand_matching.pdf, 2012.
  18. David Zuckerman. Linear degree extractors and the inapproximability of max clique and chromatic number. In Proceedings of the Thirty-eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 681-690. ACM, 2006. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing

Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail