Matching is as Easy as Matrix Inversion

Ketan Mulmuley ’
Computer Science Department
University of California, Berkeley

Umesh V. Vazirani 2
Aiken Computation Laboratory
Harvard University

Vijay V. Vazirani 3
Computer Science Department
Cornell University

Abstract only computationally non-trivial step

required in its execution is the inversion of a
A new algorithm for finding a maximum single integer matrix. Since this step can be
matching in a general graph is presented; its parallel&d, we get a simple parallel (RNC2)
special feature being that the only computa- algorithm. Because of this simplicity, the
tionally non-trivial step required in its execu- sequential version of our algorithm has some
tion is the inversion of a single integer merits over the conventional matching algo-
matrix. Since this step can be parallelized, rithms as well.
we get a simple parallel (RNC2) algorithm. This algorithm was obtained while
At the heart of our algorithm lies a proba- solving the matching problem from the
bilistic lemma, the isolating lemma. We viewpoint of parallel computation. The main
show applications of this lemma to parallel difficulty here is that the graph may contain
computation and randomized reductions. exponentially many maximum matchings;
how do we coordinate the processors so they
seek the same matching in parallel? The key
to achieving this coordination is a probabilis-
1. Introduction tic lemma, the isolating lemma, which lies at
the heart of our algorithm; it helps to single
A new algorithm for finding a max- out one matching in the graph.
imum matching in a general graph is In its general form, the isolating
presented; its special feature being that the lemma holds for an arbitrary set system.
This yields a relationship between the paral-
Permission to copy without fee all or part of this lei complexity of an arbitrary search problem
material is granted provided that the copies are not
made or distributed for direct commercial advantage, the
ACM copyright notice and the title of the publication ’ Miller Fellow, University of California, Berkeley.
and its date appear, and notice is given that copying is s Work done during a post-doctoral position at MSRI,
by permission of the Association for Computing Berkeley.
Machinery. To copy otherwise, or to republish, requires
a fee and/or specific permission. 3 Supported by NSF Grant BCR 8503611 and an IBM
Faculty Development Award.
Currently at AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ 07974.

Permission to copy without fee all or part of this material is granted provided that the copies are not made or distributed for direct commercial
advantage, the ACM copyright notice and the title of the publication and its date appear, and notice is given that copying is by permission of the
Association for Computing Machinery. To copy otherwise, or to republish, requires a fee and/or specific permission.

0 1987ACM O-89791-221-7/87/0006-0345 75c 345

and the corresponding weighted decision Tutte in 1947 ~Tu], based on the work of
problem. As an application, we give an Pfaff on skew-symmetric matrices. It states
RNC’ algorithm for the Exact Matching that a graph has a perfect matching iff a cer-
problem in general graphs. It is interesting tain matrix of indeterminates, called the
to note that this problem is not known to be Tutte matrix,, is non-singular. Motivated by
in P. The isolating lemma also yields a sim- an a1gorithmi.c use of this theorem, :Edmonds
ple proof for the result in IValVaz] showing [Ed21 studied the complexity of computing
the NP-hardness, under randomized reduc- determinants.. He gave a modified Gaussian
tions, of instances of SAT having a unique elimination procedure for computing the
solution. determinant of an integer matrix in a polyno-
Matching was first shown to be in mial number of bit operations, and stated the
Random NC @NC3 ) by Karp, Upfal and open problem of efficiently deciding whcthcr
Wigderson [KUW 11. Their algorithm also a matrix of indeterminates is non-singular.
utilizes matrix operations, and in fact these The first algorithm based on Tuttc’s
are some of the most widely used tools for theorem was given by Lovasz l&01]. Using
obtaining fast parallel algorithms. Several the fundamlental insight that polynomial
problems are known to be NC’ reducible to identities can be efficiently tested by ran-
computing the determinant of an integer domization [SC], Lovasz reduced, the deci-
matrix. Cook [Co] defines DET to be the sion problem, ‘Does the given graph have a
class of all such problems. DET G NC2, and perfect matching? ’ to testing if a given
it is not known whether this inclusion is integer matrix is non-singular. Since the
proper. All problems known to be in NC2 latter problem is in NC2 [Cs], this yields a
are either in AC1 or in DET [Co]. Our algo- (Monte Carlo) RNC2 algorithm for the
rithm puts the matching problem in RDET. former problem (see also [BGH]). Rabin and
Vazirani IRV] extended this approach, using
a theorem of Frobenius, to give a simple ran-
domizing algorithm which finds a perfect
matching by sequentially inverting IV I /2
2. History matrices.
The search problem, i.e. actually find-
The maximum matching problem is a ing a perfect matching in parallel, is much
natural problem, and its study has led to harder. The first parallel (RNC3) algorithm
conceptual breakthroughs in the field of for this long-standing open problem was
algorithms. In fact, the characterization of given by Karp, Upfal and Wigderson
‘tractable problems’ as ‘polynomial time solv- [KUWl]. Tbey use the Tutte matrix to
able problems’ was first proposed by implement (in RNC2) a ‘rank’ function.
Edmonds [Edl] in the context of the general Their algorithm probabilistically prunes out
graph matching problem. Solving this prob- edges from the graph; the rank function
lem from the viewpoint of parallel computa- guarantees that the remaining graph has a
tion has also been quite fruitful. perfect matching, and a probabilistic lemma
Whereas sequential algorithms for the ensures that a constant fraction of the edges
maximum matching problem are based on are pruned at each stage. Hence, after
finding ‘blossoms’ and ‘augmenting paths’ in O(Iog IVI) stages only a perfect matching
graphs (see lEdl]), the known parallel algo- remains. This algorithm is also Monte Carlo
rithms require a new approach; they use pro- in that it may fail to give a perfect matching.
babilistic and algebraic methods. In fact, the Using the Gallai-Edmonds Structure
matching problem emerged from algebra Theorem (see [LOO]) Karloff [Ka] gives a
around the turn of this century in the works complementary Monte Carlo (RNC2) algo-
of Petersen, Frobenius and Konig (for a rithm for bounding the size of a maximum
detailed history see [LPI), A key ingredient matching from above, thus yielding a Las
in the new approach is a theorem proved by Vegas extension.

346
 Our algorithm is conceptually different Since S contains n elements,
in that it directly finds a perfect matching in
the graph. It is somewhat faster (RI@) and Pr [There exists a singular
requires 0 (n3*‘m) processors. element] 5 ( ‘1 xn= l/2.
2n

Thus, with probability at least l/2, no ele-

ment is singular. The lemma follows from
3. The Isolating Lemma the observation that there is a unique
minimum weight set iff no element is singu-
lar.
Definition: A set system (S, F) consists of a Notice that by the same argument, the
finite set S of elements, maximum weight set will be unique with pro-
s = {Xl, x2, . ..) x,), and a family F of sub- bability at least l/2 as well. An extension of
sets of S, i.e. F = {S,, S2, * - - Sk}, SQ, the isolating lemma is required in Theorem
for 1 5 j I k. 2(a). In this extension we are given integers
Let us assign a weight wi to each ele- al,a2r ’ ’ ’ at, and the weight of set Si is
ment Xi E S and let us define the weight of defined to be aj + C Wi, 15 j5 k. The
the set Sj to be C Wi. proof given above works for this case as
x&sj
well.
Lemma 1: Let (S, F) be a set system whose
elements are assigned integer weights chosen
uniformly and independently from 11, 2n],
Then,
Pr [There is a unique minimum weight set 4. The Matching Algorithm
1
in Fl2
2’ We will first consider the simpler case
of a bipartite graph:
Proof: Fix the weights of all elements except
Xi. Define the threshold for element Xi, to be Input: A bipartite graph G(iJ,V,E), having
the real number a; such that if wi I oi then a perfect matching.
Xi is contained in some minimum weight sub-
set, Si, and if wi > oi then Xi is in no Problem : Find a perfect matching in G.
minimum weight subset.
We will view the edges in E and the
Clearly, if Wi < oi, then the element Xi set of perfect matchings in G as a set system.
must be in every minimum weight subset. Let us assign random integer weights to the
Thus ambiguity about element Xi occurs iff edges of the graph, chosen uniformly and
Wi = (xi, since in this case there is a independently from [I, 2m1, where
minimum weight subset that contains Xi and m = [El. Now by lemma 1, the minimum
another which does not. In this case we shall weight perfect matching in G will be unique
say that the element Xi is singular. with probability at least l/2. Our parallel
We now make the crucial observation algorithm will pick out this perfect matching.
that the threshold, a;, was defined without
reference to the weight, Wi, of Xi. It follows Notation: We will represent the (i, j)rh ele-
that ai is independent of Wi. Since Wi is a ment of matrix A by (lower case) aii, the
uniformly distributed integer in [1, 2n], submatrix obtained by removing the ifh row
and the jfh column by Aij, the determinant of
Pr [Element xi is singular, i.e. A by IA I, and the adjoint of A by adj(A).
1
Wi= CXi]I
2n *

347
 Let U= {ul, - - - u,}, ‘V= {vl, - - - v,}, i.e. aM, in the above sum will have value 2”.
and let D be the nx n adjacency matrix of G, The remaining permutations have value zero,
i.e. dij= 1 if (ui,vi)EE, an.d 0 otherwise. or a higher power of 2. Hence IBij 12”“/2’+
Obtain an integer’ matrix B from D by will be odd. On the other hand, if (Us, Vi) 4
replacing the l’s in D by 2”+, where wii is M, all permutations in the sum have value
the weight assigned to the edge (Ui,Vj). zero, or a power of 2 higher than 2”. Hence
IB~j12”“/2” will be even. The lemma fol-
Lemma 2: Suppose the minimum weight lows.
perfect matching in G(U, V,E) is unique.
Let this matching be M and its weight be w. The algorithm to find M is now
Then IB I# 0; moreover, the highest power straightforward:
of 2 which divides IB I is 2”.

Proof: First notice that each perfect match- Procedure: Perfect Matching (G, B);
ing in G corresponds to a permutation in S,.
For each permutation cr on (1, 2, . . . . n),
define Step 1: Compute IB I, and obtain W.

Step 2: Compute udj(B); its (j, Qrh entry

will be the minor IBij I.
Thus VU~U~(CT) f 0 iff (Ui., V.(i)) E E, for
1 5 i I n, i.e. if 0 represents a perfect
matching in G. By definition., Step 3: For each edge (Ui, Vi) do in parallel:
IB.. 12””
IB I = Csign(a)x vulue~(o) Compute ‘&, ;
a :If this quantity is odd, include
where sign(o) is + 1 if CJis an even permuta- (ui, vj) in the matching.
tion, and -1 otherwise. end;
Let oM be the permutation correspond-
ing to M. Then vaZue(crM)=:!“. The value of The algorithm for general graphs is
each of the remaining permutations is either essentially the same. The main difference is
zero, or a higher power of 2. The lemma fol- that we need to operate with the Tutte
lows. matrix of the graph.

Thus by evaluating IB I, we can deter- Definition: Given a graph G (V, E), the
mine the weight of the minimum weight adjacency matrix of G is an nx n symmetric
matching. The next lemma will enable us to matrix D SU& that dij = 1 if (Vi, vj)EE, and
obtain the matching itself. 0 otherwise. The Tutte matrix of G is an
nx n skew-symmetric matrix A, obtained as
Lemma 3: Let M be the unique minimum follows from D: if dij = dji = 1, replace
weight matching in G, and let w be its them by indeterminates Xii and -Xi;, so that
weight. The edge (Ui, Vi) belongs to M iff the entries above the diagonal are positive,
IBij 12”” and leave the 0 entries of D unchanged.
is odd.
2” Theorem (Tutte [Tu]): Let G(V, E) be a
graph and let A be its Tutte matrix. Then
Proof: First notice that
IA I# 0 iff there is a perfect matching in G.
IB~~12”V
‘J
= x sign(cr)v Obtain an integer matrix B from the
0:0(i)= j
Tutte matrix by substituting for the indeter-
Let cry be the permutation correspond- minates Xii the integers 2w’j, where Wij is the
ing to M. If (Uj, vi) E M, one permutation, weight assigned to the edge (Vi, Vj). The

348
algorithm given above, operated with B, graph G (V, E), given edge-weights w(e) for
gives a perfect matching in G. The proof of each edge OS??in unary. First notice that if
Lemmas 2 and 3 is more involved for gen- the weight of each edge is scaled up by a fac-
eral graphs, and it appears in the final paper tor of mn,’ the minimum weight perfect
(to appear in Combinatorics). matchings will be lighter than the rest by at
Notice that the only non-trivial compu- least mn. We can now use the isolating
tational effort required in the matching algo- lemma to isolate one of I these minimum
rithm is the evaluation of the determinant weight matchings: to edge e& assign the
and adjoint of B. We will use Pan’s IPa] weight mnw(e) + re, where T, is chosen uni-
randomized matrix-inversion algorithm, formly and independently from [l, 2m]. The
which computes IBI and a&(B) in order to proof of Lemma 1 works in this setting as
compute B- i. It requires 0 (log2n) time and well. As such this algorithm will require
O(n3.‘m) processors for inverting an nx n O(n3.‘mW) processors, where W is the
matrix whose entries are m-bit integers, In weight of the heaviest edge. Hence if the
comparison, there is a processor-efficient edge-weights are in unary, this problem is in
RNC3 implementation of the algorithm of RNC2. The parallel complexity of this prob-
[KUW 11 which requires 0 (n3.5) processors lem when the edge-weights are given in
binary is as yet unresolved.
WI.

Theorem 1: There is an RNC2 algorithm for b). The problem of finding a maximum
finding a perfect matching in general graphs. matching in a graph can now be reduced to
The algorithm requires 0 (n3.‘m) parallel minimum weight perfect matching as follows:
processors. extend G into a complete graph by throwing
in new edges. Assign weight 0 to each edge
of G, and 1 to each of the new edges, and
Although the sequential version of our find a minimum weight perfect matching (for
algorithm is less efficient than conventional an alternative method see [RV]).
matching algorithms (the most efficient of
these takes O(mJ T) steps [MV]), it has the
advantage of being easy to program, espe- c). The vertex-weighted matching problem is
cially if a subroutine for matrix inversion is the following:
available, In BV] a simple matching algo-
rithm is presented, addressing the issue of input : Graph G (V, E), and a positive weight
ease of programming. It would be informa- for each vertex VEV.
tive to compare these two algorithms.
Problem: Find a matching in G whose
vertex-weight is maximum. The vertex-
weight of a matching is defined to be the
sum of the weights of the vertices covered by
5. Parallel Algorithms for Related the matching.
Problems
First notice that the desired matching
will be a maximum matching. This is so
A parallel algorithm for the perfect because any non-maximum matching can be
matching problem easily yields parallel algo- augmented into a maximum matching
rithms for the following related problems. without unmatching any vertex in the pro-
RNC3 algorithms for these problems are cess. Define V’GV to be a matching set if V’
given in [KUWl]. Here we give RNC2 algo- is the set of vertices covered by a maximum
rithms. matching in G. The solution now consists of
finding the heaviest matching set, and a per-
a). We first address the problem of finding a fect matching in the subgraph induced by
minimum weight perfect matching in a

349
these vertices. Sort the v’ertices of G by parallelized? Notice that the self-reduction
decreasing weight. Two matching sets can process yields the lexicographically first solu-
be compared lexicographically in this sorted tion. For several problems, such as maximal
order. independent set and depth first search, find-
ing such a solution is P-complete (see [Co]),
Lemma 4: The lexicographically largest even though efficient parallel algorithms
matching set is the heaviest matching set. exist for the unrestricted search problem (the
parallel complexity of finding the lexico-
Proof: Let L and H be maximum matchings graphically first perfect matching or the lexi-
which give the lexicographically largest and cographically first maximal matching is as
the heaviest matching sets respectively. Sup- yet unresolveld). This issue was first studied
pose these matching sets are: different. Let u by Karp, Upfal and Wigderson [KUW2].
be the first vertex in the sorted order where Motivated from matroid theory, they give an
the two sets differ. The vertex u will be RNC2 procedure for the search problem,
matched in L but not in 1Fi. Consider the using an oracle for the ‘rank’ function. Via
symmetric difference of L and H. This will the isolating lemma, we reduce a general
have an alternating even length path from 1( search problem to the weighted decision
to a vertex v, say. The symmetric difference problem, where the weights are polynomially
of this path and H will yield a matching bounded.
heavier than H, since v is lighter than u. The
contradiction proves the lemlma. Theorem 3: Let (S, F) be an arbitrary set
We now use the A?NC2 algorithm system, and let 0 be an oracle for the
presented in [VV] for obtaining the lexico- weighted decision problem, ‘Given polynomi-
graphically largest matching set. This algo- ally bounded positive integral weights for the
rithm is based on a generalization of Tutte’s elements of ,S and a positive integer k, is
Theorem. there a set j7 whose weight is k or less?’
There is an RNC’ procedure which uses 0 to
solve the search problem ‘Find a set in F’.
Theorem 2: The following problems are in
RNC2: The procedure is similar to the perfect
a). Finding a maximum matching in a graph. matching algorithm of Section 3. The weight
b). Finding a minimum weight perfect of the minimum weight set is determined by
matching when the edge weights are given in binary search on k, using O(logn) calls to
unary. the weighted decision procedure. Its ele-
c). Finding a maximum vertex-weighted ments are identified in parallel by the follow-
matching (even if the vertex weights are ing observati.on: an element Xi is in the
given in binary). minimum weight set iff upon increasing its
weight by 1, the weight of the minimum
weight set increases. Hence we can deter-
mine the elements of the minimum weight
set in parallel.
6. Other Applications of the Isolating Using this procedure we obtain an
Lemma RNC2 algorithm for the following problem
posed by Papadimitriou and Yannakakis
[PY]. Interestingly enough, it is not known
a) Parallel Complexity of Search vs. Deci- if this problem can be solved in (determinis-
sion Problems tic) polynomial time.
For the case of sequential computation,
search problems are reducible to the Exact Matching:
corresponding decision problems via self- Input: A graph G (V, E), a subset E‘cE of
reducibility. Can such al reduction be red edges, and a positive integer k.

350
Output: Find a perfect matching involving w(v) to each vertex VEV, chosen from [l,
exactly k red edges. 2n1, where n = IVI. By the isolating
lemma, with probability at least l/2, the
In this case the set system will consist of all maximum weight clique will be unique in
perfect matchings which have exactly k red this graph. The transformed graph G’ is now
edges. Assume that polynomially bounded obtained as follows: corresponding to vertex
weights w, are given to the edges ee.E of G, WV, G’ will have 2nk + w(v) vertices, with
and there is a unique minimum weight per- a clique on them. Corresponding to each
fect matching with k red edges. The follow- edge (u, v) in G, each copy of u is joined to
ing NC2 procedure, suggested by Lovasz, each copy of v in G’. Next choose a random
will find the weight of this perfect matching: integer r in [l, 2nk], and let k’ = 2nk2 + r.
in the Tutte matrix of G, substitute 2w’ for a The transformed problem is (G’, k’).
variable x, if eczE- E’ and 2w’y if eEE’, The following hold by Lemma 1:
where y is an indeterminate. Let B be the
resulting (skew-symmetric) matrix. Now, (1) (G, k) $ CLIQUE => (G’, k’) d
UNIQUE CLIQUE.
IBI = @f(B))2
(2) (G, k) E CLIQUE = > Pr [(G’, k’)
where pf(B) is the Pfaffian of B. Compute E UNXQUE CLIQUE] 2 114n.
IB I using the parallel determinant algorithm
of [BCP], and then compute its square-root
by interpolation. The power of 2 in the coef-
ficient of yk will be the weight of the
minimum weight perfect matching involving 7, Discussion and Future Directions
exactly k red edges.
One difficulty in solving combinatorial
Theorem 4: The exact matching problem is problems in parallel is the following: on the
in RNC2. one hand it is crucial to coordinate the pro-
cessors so they seek the same solution in
parallel; on the other hand, the problem of
b) Randomized Reductions finding a solution with any special proper-
We now turn to another application of ties, such as the lexicographically first one, is
the isolating lemma. Valiant and Vazirani typically P-complete. The isolating lemma
[ValVaz] studied the complexity of finding gets around this; it induces a probability dis-
solutions to instances of SAT having unique tribution on the set of matchings in the
solutions. They show that this problem is graph, and it picks one matching from this
M-hard under randomized reductions. Their distribution. The distribution assigns a non-
proof is based on the hash-function property zero probability to each matching in the
of GF [2] inner products. The isolating graph. Can the methods presented here be
lemma yields a simpler proof. extended to achieve a uniform probability
For simplicity, we consider the distribution, thereby obtaining random
CLIQUE problem, which is parsimoniously matching in the given graph? This will help
inter-reducible with SAT. The core of the solve a long-standing open problem, that of
proof is illustrated by showing a randomized estimating the permanent of a O/l matrix.
reduction from CLIQUE to UNIQUE Computing the permanent exactly is #P-
CLIQUE. The CLIQUE problem is ‘Given a complete [Va]; however, the problem of
graph G(V, E) and an integer k, is there a estimating the permanent is equivalent to the
clique of size k in the graph?’ On the other problem of generating a random perfect
hand, UNIQUE CLIQUE asks if there is matching in a bipartite graph [Br], [JVV].
exactly one clique of size k. The main step in the matching algo-
The reduction is as follows. First rithm, matrix inversion, can be accomplished
assign a random and independent weight in several ways: by Guassian elimination, a

351
greedy algorithm, or by Strassen’s method set in F is u:niclue with probability at Ileast
(see [AHU]), which is based on divide and half.
conquer. Thus by suitably implementing An important open problem remaining
matrix inversion, the matlching algorithm is whether the maximum matching probIem
acquires a greedy/divide-and-conquer fla- is in (determmistic) NC. Currently, incom-
vour. This opens the possibility of a com- parability graphs is the largest class of
binatorial algorithm for matching which has graphs for which this problem is known to be
this flavour. Notice that the algorithm in NC [KVV]. It may be easier to solve the
presented relies critically on the choice of a decision problem, ‘Does the given graph
suitable generalization of matching: the have a perfect matching?‘, before tackling
weighted problem with the additional condi- the general search problem. The following
tion that there is a unique minimum weight modified decision problem is known to be in
perfect matching. Whereas it is unlikely that hTC, ‘Does the given bipartite graph have a
there is a greedy/divide-and-conquer algo- unique perfect matching?’ [KVV].
rithm for matching itself, the results
presented in this paper indicate that it is not
unreasonable to expect a combinatorial algo-
rithm for the generalized problem, or a suit-
able modification. Acknowledgements: We are thankful to
In applying the isolating lemma to the David Aldous, Jack Edmonds, Laszlo
case of perfect matchings, it seems that sub- Lovasz, Eva Tardos and Les Valiant for
stituting random integers from [l, 2n3 valuable discussions.
should suffice where IVI = n. This will
improve the processor-efficiency of the paral-
lel algorithm and the running time of the
sequential Las Vegas algorithm.
Notice that the proof of the isolating References
lemma relies on the independence of the
weights of the elements. It would be interest-
ing to study how crucial the role of indepen- [AHUI A.V. Aho, J.E. Hopcroft, and J.D.
dence is. The semi-random source, intro- Ullman, The Design and Analysis of
duced in [SV] and [Vaz], mathematically Computer Algorithm, Addison-
models dependence using the notion of an Wesl.ey, Reading, Mass,, 1974.
adversary. Thus one could study the proba- WPI A. Borodin, S.A. Cook, and N.
bility that the minimum weight set is unique, Pippinger, ‘Parallel Computation
if the weights of the elements are assigned for Well-endowed Rings and Space
by a semi-random source. One possible for- Bounded Probabilistic Machines,’
mulation is the following: Information and Control 58, l-3
(1983). pp. 113-136.
Let (S,F) be a set system with
s= {Xl, * - * x,}. Each element of S is [BGHI A. Borodin, J. von zur Gathen, and
assigned a label by the roll of an m+ k sided J.E. Hopcroft, ‘Fast Parallel Matrix
dice whose k faces are labelled with *, and and GCD Computations’, Twenty
the remaining faces are numbered from 1 to Third Annual IEEE Symp. on the
m. Each face is equally likeby to appear. The Foundations of Computer Science
adversary now looks at all the outcomes and (1982?),pp. 65-71.
assigns weights from [1, * * u m] to the *‘ed IBrl A.Z. Broder, ‘How Hard is it to
elements, trying to ensure that the minimum Marry at Random? (On the
weight set in F is not unique. The problem Approximation of the Permanent)‘,
is to place good bounds on .m and k so that Eighteenth Annual Symp. on the
despite the adversary, the minimum weight Theory of Computing, (1986), pp.

352
 50-58. and Theoretical Computer Science
[Co1 S.A. Cook, ‘A Taxonomy of Prob- Conference, (1985), to appear in
lems with Fast Parallel Algorithms,’ Theoretical Computer Science.
information and Control, 64, 2-22 ml1 L. Lovasz, ‘On Determinants,
(1985). Matchings and Random Algo-
ux L. Csanky, ‘Fast Parallel Matrix rithms,’ Fundamentals of Computing
Inversion Algorithms,’ SIAM J. Theory, edited by L.Budach,
Computing 5, (1976), pp. 618-623. Akademia-Verlag, Berlin, (1979).
IEd11 J. Edmonds, ‘Paths, Trees and [Lo21 L. Lovasz, ‘Combinatorial Problems
Flowers, ’ Canad. J. Math., 17, and Exercises, ’ Akademiai Kaido,
(1965), pp. 449-467. Budapest, and, North-Holland,
Amsterdam, (1979).
[Ed21 J. Edmonds, ‘Systems of Distinct
Representatives and Linear Atge- u-a L. Lovasz and M. Plummer,
bra,’ J. Res. Nat. Bureau of Stan- Matching Theory, Academic Press,
dards, 71B, 4, (1967), pp 241-245. Budapest, Hungary, (in press).
@PI Z. Galil and V. Pan, ‘Improved WV1 S. Micali and V.V. Vazirani, ‘An
Processor Bounds for Algebraic and 0 (4 IVI IE I) Algorithm for Find-
Combinatorial Problems in RNC,’ ing Maximum Matching in General
Twenty Sixth Annual IEEE Symp. on Graphs,’ Twenty First Annual IEEE
the Foundations of Computer Sci- Symp. on the Foundations of Com-
ence, (1985). pp. 490-495. puter Science, (1980), pp 17-27.

[JVVI M.R. Jerrum, L.G. Valiant and Pal V. Pan, ‘Fast and Efficient Algo-
V. V. Vazirani, ‘Random Genera- rithms for the Exact Inversion of
tion of Combinatorial Structures Integer Matrices, Fifth Annual
from a Uniform Distribution’, Foundations of Software Technology
Theoretical Computer Science 43 and Theoretical Computer Science
(1986) pp. 169-188. , Conference, (1985).

Kal H. Karloff, ‘A Randomized Parallel C.H. Papadimitriou and M. Yan-

Algorithm for the Odd Set Cover nakakis, ‘The Complexity of Res-
Problem,’ to appear in Combinator- tricted Spanning Tree Problems,
ica. JACM, Vol 29, No. 2, (1982), pp.
285-309.
[KUWI] R.M. Karp, E. Upfal, and A.
Wigderson, ‘Constructing a Max- M.O. Rabin and V.V. Vazirani,
imum Matching is in Random NC,’ ‘Maximum Matching in General
Combinatorics, 6( 1), ( 1986) pp. Graphs Through Randomization,’
35-48. submitted for publication.
[KUW21 R.M. Karp. E. Upfal, and A. WI M. Santha and U.V. Vazirani,
Wigderson, ‘Are Search and Deci- ‘Generating Quasi-Random
sion Problems Computationally Sequences from Semi-Random
Equivalent?’ Seventeenth Annual Sources’, JCSS, Vol 33, No 1, Aug
Symp. on Theory of Computing, 1986, pp. 75-87.
(1985). WI J.T. Schwartz, ‘Fast Probabilistic
[KVV] D. Kozen, U.V. Vazirani, and Algorithms for Verification of Poly-
V.V. Vazirani, ‘NC Algorithms for nomial Identities,’ JACM, 27(4),
Comparability Graphs, Interval 701-717 (1980).
graphs, and Testing for Unique Vu1 W.T. Tutte, ‘The Factorization of
Perfect Matching,’ Fifth Annual Linear Graphs, ’ J. London
Foundations of Sofhvare Technology Math. Sot. 22, (1947), pp. 107-111.

353
Wal L.G. Valiant, ‘The Compl.exity of
Computing the Perimanent’,
Theoretical Computer Science 8
(1979) pp. 189-201.
[ValVaz]L.G. Valiant and V.V. Vazirani,
‘NP is as Easy as Detecting Unique
Solutions,’ Theoretical Computer
Science, 47 (1986), pp. 85-93.
[Vaz] U.V. Vazirani, ‘Randomness,
Adversaries and Computation’,
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley (1986)..
WV1 U.V. Vazirani and V.V. Vazirani,
‘The Two-Processor Scheduling
Problem is in Random NC,’ Seven-
teenth Annual Symp. on Theory of
Computing, (1985), pp. 11-21.

354