Table of Contents
Fetching ...

On the Complexity of Nucleolus Computation for Bipartite b-Matching Games

Jochen Koenemann, Justin Toth, Felix Zhou

TL;DR

This work studies the computational complexity of the nucleolus in bipartite $b$-matching games. It proves that computing the nucleolus for simple bipartite $b$-matching games is $\\mathcal{NP}$-hard, already for graphs with maximum degree $7$, via a reduction from a variant called Two from Cubic Subgraph using a gadget construction and the Kopelowitz framework. The paper also identifies two polynomial-time tractable regimes when $b\leq 2$: (i) a simple case with $b_v=2$ on one side and only $k$ vertices with $b_v=2$ on the other, and (ii) the non-simple $2$-matching case with $b\equiv 2$, leveraging dual LP simplifications and structural properties of maximum $b$-matchings. These results delineate the boundary between tractable and intractable nucleolus computations in bipartite $b$-matching games and guide future algorithmic approaches and extensions to broader graph classes. The findings rely on the Kopelowitz Scheme to connect LP-based characterizations with combinatorial gadget constructions, yielding both hardness and constructive polynomial-time algorithms.

Abstract

We explore the complexity of nucleolus computation in b-matching games on bipartite graphs. We show that computing the nucleolus of a simple b-matching game is NP-hard even on bipartite graphs of maximum degree 7. We complement this with partial positive results in the special case where b values are bounded by 2. In particular, we describe an efficient algorithm when a constant number of vertices satisfy b(v) = 2 as well as an efficient algorithm for computing the non-simple b-matching nucleolus when b = 2.

On the Complexity of Nucleolus Computation for Bipartite b-Matching Games

TL;DR

This work studies the computational complexity of the nucleolus in bipartite -matching games. It proves that computing the nucleolus for simple bipartite -matching games is -hard, already for graphs with maximum degree , via a reduction from a variant called Two from Cubic Subgraph using a gadget construction and the Kopelowitz framework. The paper also identifies two polynomial-time tractable regimes when : (i) a simple case with on one side and only vertices with on the other, and (ii) the non-simple -matching case with , leveraging dual LP simplifications and structural properties of maximum -matchings. These results delineate the boundary between tractable and intractable nucleolus computations in bipartite -matching games and guide future algorithmic approaches and extensions to broader graph classes. The findings rely on the Kopelowitz Scheme to connect LP-based characterizations with combinatorial gadget constructions, yielding both hardness and constructive polynomial-time algorithms.

Abstract

We explore the complexity of nucleolus computation in b-matching games on bipartite graphs. We show that computing the nucleolus of a simple b-matching game is NP-hard even on bipartite graphs of maximum degree 7. We complement this with partial positive results in the special case where b values are bounded by 2. In particular, we describe an efficient algorithm when a constant number of vertices satisfy b(v) = 2 as well as an efficient algorithm for computing the non-simple b-matching nucleolus when b = 2.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 17 sections, 25 theorems, 29 equations, 4 figures, 2 tables.

Key Result

Theorem 1.1

The problem of deciding whether an allocation is equal to the nucleolus of an unweighted bipartite 3-matching game is $\mathcal{NP}$-hard, even in graphs of maximum degree 7.

Figures (4)

  • Figure 1: The gadget graph from biro2018.
  • Figure 2: A subgraph of $G_1$ for $k=2$, depicting the changes in Step I.
  • Figure 3: The substitution at what used to be $a_i, a_i'$.
  • Figure 4: An illustration of \ref{['lem:propagation']} with $r=3, \kappa=2$ and $\Delta_{V'} = 4$.

Theorems & Definitions (52)

  • Theorem 1.1
  • Theorem 1.2
  • Theorem 2.1
  • Lemma 2.2
  • Proof
  • Lemma 2.3
  • Proof
  • Lemma 2.4
  • Proof
  • Definition 2.1: Locally Regular
  • ...and 42 more