Perfect matching in NC: derandomising the isolation lemma for bipartite and general graphs
A famous, 35-year-old derandomisation problem with a clean statement and a long chain of partial progress (planar, minor-closed, quasi-NC) but no technique for removing the last log n factor of weight-function rounds. Application value is low. Leverage is mid-band because matching is the canonical problem for isolation-based derandomisation.
The problem
Can a network be paired up perfectly using many processors working in parallel, without relying on random choices?
- 1Pair everyone up using many processors
- 2Random weights make one pairing win
- 3Can we pick weights without random?
- 42016: nearly, using too many processors
- 5Open: full efficient parallel method
The problem. Given an -vertex graph, decide whether it has a perfect matching and, if so, construct one, using a deterministic parallel algorithm with processors and depth. That is the class . The problem is in (NC with randomness) by the : a random weight assignment makes the minimum-weight perfect matching unique with probability at least . Once the minimum is unique, determinants of weighted matrices reveal it in parallel.
Path to understanding
foundations → problemThe research entries this problem rests on, in the order to read them. Each links to its explainer.
- Start with
- Step 2
- Computational complexity theoryTheory · host
- Then
- Perfect matching in NC: derandomising the isolation lemma for bipartite and general graphsThe problem
State of the art
Known. Mulmuley, Vazirani and Vazirani (Combinatorica 1987) and Karp, Upfal and Wigderson (1986) gave RNC algorithms. Fenner, Gurjar and Thierauf (STOC 2016, arXiv:1601.06319) gave a deterministic quasi-NC algorithm for bipartite perfect matching by constructing a poly-size family of weight functions, one of which is isolating, and as a consequence NC algorithms for planar bipartite graphs. Svensson and Tarnawski (FOCS 2017, arXiv:1704.01929) extended to general graphs, by a more involved isolation argument; they stated getting from quasi-NC to NC as the most immediate open question, even for bipartite graphs, and noted that the number of weight functions in the construction ( rounds) is the obstacle. Anari and Vazirani (arXiv 2017; FOCS 2018, J. ACM 2020) proved that planar perfect matching is in NC, and Eppstein and Vazirani (SPAA 2019; SIAM J. Comput. 2021) extended NC algorithms to one-crossing-minor-free graphs, which include -free graphs. Exact matching (a perfect matching with a prescribed number of red edges) is in RNC with no known deterministic polynomial-time algorithm, let alone NC; an unrefereed AI-generated manuscript in OpenAI's October 2026 release claims a randomised almost-linear-time sequential algorithm for it, which does not bear on derandomisation. No 2025–26 result improving the quasi-NC bounds was found.
Realistic applications
NC algorithms for matching would complete the picture of parallel complexity of combinatorial optimisation (matching, flows, matroid problems are the standard test cases for derandomising the isolation lemma). It would also imply deterministic algorithms for related search problems that reduce to matching, but a quasi-NC algorithm is already almost as good in theory; practical parallel matching uses randomised or heuristic algorithms.
What counts as solved
A deterministic algorithm for bipartite (or general) perfect matching with processors and depth, with proof. Partial progress: NC for a new graph class, or an NC algorithm for the decision problem alone.
How it gets verified
Expert reviewOnly expert review of the argument is possible today.
A resolution is a deterministic polylog-depth, polynomial-processor algorithm for perfect matching with a proof of correctness and depth. Parallel-complexity classes are not in Mathlib, so the claim cannot be machine-checked today. Experts review the argument; an implementation on random graphs can test correctness but not the depth bound.
Claims under verification
+ add a claimNo claimed results on the Verification board for this problem yet.
Where the work is
Purely combinatorial/algebraic proof.
Bottlenecks
ranked by votes- #1TheoryReducing weight-function rounds from log n to O(1)
Quasi-NC algorithms need log n rounds of refinement, each multiplying the number of candidate weight functions; a different isolation idea is needed.
Community grades
Sign in to add your own grade.
Connected problems
Progress
- Sep 21, 2017Planar perfect matching in NCsource
Anari and Vazirani proved NC for planar graphs.
- Apr 6, 2017General-graph matching in quasi-NCsource
Svensson and Tarnawski extended the result to general graphs (FOCS 2017).
- Jan 23, 2016Bipartite matching in quasi-NCsource
Fenner, Gurjar and Thierauf gave a deterministic quasi-NC algorithm (STOC 2016).
- Dec 1, 1987Matching is in RNC via the isolation lemmasource
Mulmuley, Vazirani and Vazirani showed matching reduces to matrix inversion with randomised isolation.