Single-pass semi-streaming matching

About 22 years old · traced to

Can a single-pass semi-streaming algorithm beat the naive greedy 1/21/2 approximation for maximum matching?

References

Progress summary

Refreshed
Claimed solved

A 2026 paper proves that the simple greedy method is already as good as any single-pass semi-streaming method for this matching problem.

The question asks whether one pass over a graph, using only semi-streaming space, can beat greedy’s approximation guarantee. It had remained open since the semi-streaming model was introduced by Feigenbaum et al. in 2005.

Known results

  • Earlier lower bounds successively ruled out approximation ratios above 2/32/3, (1−1/e)≈0.632(1-1/e) \approx 0.632, (1+ln⁡2)−1≈0.590(1+\ln 2)^{-1} \approx 0.590, and (8−210)/3≈0.558(8-2\sqrt{10})/3 \approx 0.558.
  • The preceding blueprint-framework work ruled out every ratio above (8−210)/3(8-2\sqrt{10})/3 and identified the question as still open.

July 2026 resolution

The paper “Semi-Streaming Matching in a Single Pass II: Greedy is Optimal” proves that no deterministic or randomized single-pass semi-streaming algorithm for maximum bipartite matching achieves any constant approximation ratio strictly greater than 1/21/2 with constant probability. Since greedy guarantees 1/21/2, it is optimal; the paper also derives the same barrier for online matching with preemption.

Current status (as of August 2026): The problem is resolved: greedy’s 1/21/2 approximation is optimal for single-pass semi-streaming maximum bipartite matching, including randomized algorithms.

Sources

Solutions 0

No solutions have been posted yet.