New Philosopher Inequalities for Online Bayesian Matching, via Pivotal Sampling

• Main Authors: Braverman, Mark, Derakhshan, Mahsa, Pollner, Tristan, Saberi, Amin, Wajc, David
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 21.07.2024
• Subjects: Computer Science - Data Structures and Algorithms
• DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2407.15285

We study the polynomial-time approximability of the optimal online stochastic bipartite matching algorithm, initiated by Papadimitriou et al. (EC'21). Here, nodes on one side of the graph are given upfront, while at each time $t$, an online node and its edge weights are drawn from a time-dependent distribution. The optimal algorithm is $\textsf{PSPACE}$-hard to approximate within some universal constant. We refer to this optimal algorithm, which requires time to think (compute), as a philosopher, and refer to polynomial-time online approximations of the above as philosopher inequalities. The best known philosopher inequality for online matching yields a $0.652$-approximation. In contrast, the best possible prophet inequality, or approximation of the optimum offline solution, is $0.5$. Our main results are a $0.678$-approximate algorithm and a $0.685$-approximation for a vertex-weighted special case. Notably, both bounds exceed the $0.666$-approximation of the offline optimum obtained by Tang, Wu, and Wu (STOC'22) for the vertex-weighted problem. Building on our algorithms and the recent black-box reduction of Banihashem et al. (SODA'24), we provide polytime (pricing-based) truthful mechanisms which $0.678$-approximate the social welfare of the optimal online allocation for bipartite matching markets. Our online allocation algorithm relies on the classic pivotal sampling algorithm (Srinivasan FOCS'01, Gandhi et al. J.ACM'06), along with careful discarding to obtain negative correlations between offline nodes. Consequently, the analysis boils down to examining the distribution of a weighted sum $X$ of negatively correlated Bernoulli variables, specifically lower bounding its mass below a threshold, $\mathbb{E}[\min(1,X)]$, of possible independent interest. Interestingly, our bound relies on an imaginary invocation of pivotal sampling.