arxiv: v1 [cs.gt] 14 Mar 2019

Transcription

1 Stable Roommates wth Narcssstc, Sngle-Peaked, and Sngle-Crossng Preferences Robert Bredereck 1, Jehua Chen 2, Ugo Paavo Fnnendahl 1, and Rolf Nedermeer 1 arxv: v1 [cs.gt] 14 Mar TU Berln, Berln, Germany {robert.bredereck, rolf.nedermeer}@tu-berln.de, ugo.p.fnnendahl@campus.tu-berln.de 2 Unversty of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland jehua.chen2@gmal.com Abstract The classcal Stable Roommates problem asks whether t s possble to have a matchng of an even number of agents such that no two agents whch are not matched to each other would prefer to be wth each other rather than wth ther assgned partners. We nvestgate Stable Roommates wth complete (.e., every agent can be matched wth any other agent) or ncomplete preferences, wth tes (.e., two agents are consdered of equal value to some agent) or wthout tes. It s known that n general allowng tes makes the problem NP-complete. We provde algorthms for Stable Roommates that are, compared to those n the lterature, more effcent when the nput preferences are complete and have some structural property, such as beng narcssstc, sngle-peaked, and sngle-crossng. However, when the preferences are ncomplete and have tes, we show that beng sngle-peaked and sngle-crossng does not reduce the computatonal complexty Stable Roommates remans NP-complete. 1 Introducton Gven 2 n agents, each havng preferences wth regard to how sutable the other agents are as potental partners, the Stable Roommates problem asks to fnd a matchng,.e., a set of dsjont pars of the agents, wthout nducng a blockng par. A blockng par conssts of two agents that are not matched to each other but prefer to be wth each other rather than wth ther assgned partners. A matchng wthout blockng pars s called a stable matchng. Stable Roommates was ntroduced by Gale and Shapley [22] n the 1960 s and has been studed extensvely snce then [28 30, 43, 44]. Whle t s qute straghtforward to see that stable matchngs may not always exst, t s not trval to see whether an exstng stable matchng can be found n polynomal tme, even when the nput preference orders are complete and do not contan tes (.e., each agent can be a potental partner to each other agent, and no two agents A prelmnary veron of ths work appeared n the Proceedngs of the 5th Internatonal Conference on Algorthmc Decson Theory (ADT 17) [8], volume of LNCS, pages , Sprnger, Ths full verson contans proof detals for Proposton 2.1, Observaton 2.2, and Proposton 4.1. Furthermore, the reducton used for our man result (Theorem 4.4) was replaced by a completely new reducton showng NP-hardness for the case of narcssstc, sngle-peaked, and sngle-crossng preferences (the preferences n the prevous reducton were not narcssstc). Most of the work was done whle all authors were wth TU Berln, wth some addtonal work done whle Jehua Chen was wth Ben-Guron Unversty. 1

2 are consdered to be equally sutable as a partner). For the case wthout tes, Irvng [28] and Gusfeld and Irvng [26] provded O(n 2 )-tme algorthms to decde the exstence of a stable matchng and to fnd one f t exsts for complete preferences and for ncomplete preferences, respectvely. Decdng whether a gven nstance admts a stable matchng s NP-complete [43] when the gven preferences may have tes. Solvng Stable Roommates has many applcatons, such as matchng students wth each other to accomplsh a homework project or users n a P2P fle sharng network, assgnng coworkers to two-person offces, parttonng players n two-player games, or fndng recever-donor pars for organ transplants [31, 33, 34, 45, 46]. In such stuatons, the students, the people, or the players, who we jontly refer to as agents, typcally have certan structurally restrcted preferences on whch other agents mght be ther best partners. For nstance, when assgnng roommates, each agent may have an deal room temperature and may prefer to be wth another agent wth the same penchant. Such preferences are called narcssstc. Moreover, f we order the agents accordng to ther deal room temperatures, then t s natural to assume that each agent prefers to be wth an agent x rather than wth another agent y f z s deal temperature s closer to x s than to y s. Ths knd of preferences s called sngle-peaked [5, 13, 27]. Sngle-peakedness s used to model agents preferences where there s a crteron, e.g., room temperature, that can be used to obtan a lnear order of the agents such that each agent s preferences over all agents along ths order are strctly ncreasng untl they reach the peak ther deal partner and then strctly decreasng. Sngle-peakedness s a popular concept wth promnent applcatons n votng contexts. It can be tested for n lnear tme [2, 4, 14, 18] f the nput preferences are complete and have no tes. Another possble restrcton on the preferences s the sngle-crossng property, whch was orgnally proposed to model ndvduals preferences on ncome taxaton [38, 42]. It requres a lnear order (the so-called sngle-crossng order) of the agents so that for each two dstnct agents x and y, there exsts at most one par of consecutve agents (the crossng pont) along the sngle-crossng order that dsagrees on the relatve order of x and y. Snglecrossngness can be detected n polynomal tme [6, 14, 15] f the nput preferences are complete and have no tes. We refer to Bredereck et al. [7] and Elknd et al. [17] for numerous references on sngle-peakedness and sngle-crossngness. Related work. Barthold III and Trck [4] studed Stable Roommates wth narcssstc and sngle-peaked preferences. They showed that for the case wth lnear orders (.e., complete and wthout tes) Stable Roommates always admts a unque stable matchng, and they provded an O(n)-tme algorthm to fnd ths matchng. Ths s remarkable snce restrctng the preference doman does not only guarantee the exstence of stable matchngs, but also allows fndng t n tme O(n), that s, sub-lnear n the nput length O(n 2 ). In ths specfc case, ths speed up mples that a stable matchng can be found wthout readng the whole nput preferences as long as the nput s assumed to be narcssstc and sngle-peaked. In terms of preference structures n the stable matchng settng, usng a connecton between narcssstc sngle-crossng preference profles and sem-standard Young tableaux [48], Chen and Fnnendahl [9] counted the number of narcssstc preference profles that are also ether sngle-peaked or sngle-crossng. Paper structure and our contrbutons. In ths work, we study the computatonal complexty of Stable Roommates for structured preferences when ncompleteness and tes are allowed. In partcular, we explore how the specfc preference structures help n guaranteeng the exstence of stable matchngs and n desgnng effcent algorthms for fndng a stable matchng, even when the nput preferences may be ncomplete or contan tes. In Secton 2, we dscuss natural generalzatons of the well-known sngle-peaked and snglecrossng preferences (that were orgnally ntroduced for lnear orders) for ncomplete preferences 2

3 Table 1: Complexty of Stable Roommates for restrcted domans: narcssstc, sngle-peaked, and sngle-crossng preferences. Entres marked wth are from Irvng [28]. Entres marked wth are from Gusfeld and Irvng [26]. Entres marked wth are from Ronn [43]. Entres marked wth are from Barthold III and Trck [4]. Entres marked boldfaced wth a reference to the correspondng theorem [T. x.y] or proposton [P. x.y] are new results shown n ths paper. Note that our hardness results for sngle-crossng preferences hold for the more restrcted te-senstve sngle-crossng varant. wthout tes wth tes complete ncomplete complete ncomplete no restrcton O(n 2 ) O(n 2 ) NP-c NP-c narcssstc & sngle-peaked (s-p) O(n) O(n 2 ) O(n 2 ) [T. 3.3] NP-c [T. 4.4] narcssstc & sngle-crossng (s-c) O(n) [P. 3.4] O(n 2 ) O(n 2 ) [P. 3.4] NP-c [T. 4.4] narcssstc & s-p & s-c O(n) [P. 3.4] O(n 2 ) O(n 2 ) [P. 3.4] NP-c [T. 4.4] wth tes. In Secton 3, we show that for complete preference orders, structurally restrcted preferences such as beng narcssstc and sngle-crossng or beng narcssstc and sngle-peaked guarantee the exstence of stable matchngs. Moreover, we demonstrate that the known algorthm of Barthold III and Trck [4] can be extended to always fnds a stable matchng n two new cases: The algorthm works when the preferences are complete, narcssstc, sngle-crossng, and may contan tes as well as when the preferences are complete, narcssstc, sngle-peaked, and may contan tes. The runnng tme for 2 n agents ncreases to O(n 2 ) when tes are present. In Secton 4 we study the case where the preferences are ncomplete and may contan tes, and prove that Stable Roommates becomes NP-complete, even when the preferences are narcssstc, sngle-peaked, and (te-senstve) sngle-crossng. Our results, together wth those from related work, are surveyed n Table 1. We conclude n Secton 5 wth some open questons. 2 Fundamental concepts and basc observatons In ths secton, we ntroduce fundamental concepts and notons, arsng from stable matchngs and structured preferences, and we make some crucal observatons regardng relaton between the structured preferences. 2.1 Preferences, acceptable sets, and acceptablty graphs Let V = {1,2,...,2n} be a set of 2 n agents. Each agent V has a preference order whch s a weak order on a subset V( ) V of agents that fnds acceptable as a partner. Recall that a weak order on a set X of elements s a transtve and complete bnary relaton on X. The set V( ) s called the acceptable set of. For each two acceptable agents x,y V( ), the expresson x y means that weakly prefers x over y (.e., fnds that x s better than or as good as y). We use to denote the asymmetrc part of (.e., x y and (y x), meanng that strctly prefers x to y) and to denote the symmetrc part of (.e., x y and y x, meanng that values x and y equally). We assume that the acceptablty relaton between each two agents s symmetrc,.e., for each two dstnct agents and j t holds that fnds j acceptable f and only f j fnds acceptable, as otherwse and j wll never be partners of each other. Formally, ths means that V( j ) f and only f j V( ). Moreover, snce an agent that s acceptable to no other agents wll never obtan a partner we also assume that for each agent there s at least another agent j wth V( j ). 3

4 1 w 1 w 2 w 3 w (a) The underlyng acceptablty graph of a Stable Roommates nstance wth complete preferences, where any two dstnct agents may fnd each other acceptable. m 1 m 2 m 3 m 4 (b) The underlyng acceptablty graph of a classc Stable Marrage nstance, whch s always bpartte. In such an nstance, each woman from the top row can only be matched wth a man from the bottom row, and the converse. Fgure 1: Acceptablty graphs of two specal cases of Stable Roommates. We note that although n Stable Roommates, an agent cannot be matched to tself, t may stll make sense to nclude an agent x n ts own acceptable set,.e., x V( x ), for nstance when the preferences of x are based on how close or smlar agents are to the deal partner of x and a partner whch s dentcal to x tself s an deal partner of x. We call an agent x a most acceptable agent of another agent y f for all z V y \{x,y} t holds that x y z. Note that an agent can have more than one most acceptable agent. Let X V and Y V be two dsjont sets of agents and be a bnary relaton over V V. To smplfy notaton, by X Y, we mean that for each two agents x and y wth x X and y Y t holds that x y. Analogously, by X Y and X Y we mean that for each two agents x and y wth x X and y Y t holds that x y and x y, respectvely. For each bnary relaton symbol {,, }, we use X y and y X as shortcut for X {y} and {y} X, respectvely. To vsualze whch agent s consdered as acceptable by an agent we ntroduce the noton of acceptablty graphs. An acceptablty graph G for a set V of agents s an undrected graph wthout loops, where an edge sgnfes that two dstnct agents fnd each other acceptable. We use V to also denote the vertex set of G. Formally, for each agent V, there s a vertex correspondng to agent. There s an edge {,j} n G f V( j )\{j} and j V( )\{}. As already dscussed, we assume wthout loss of generalty that G does not contan solated vertces as otherwse the correspondng agents wll never be able to obtan any partner. We llustrate two promnent specal cases of acceptablty graphs n Fgure Blockng pars and stable matchngs Gven a preference profle P for a set V of agents, a matchng M E(G) s a subset of dsjont pars {x,y} of agents wth x y (or edges n E(G)), where E(G) s the set of edges n the correspondng acceptablty graph G. For a par {x,y} of agents, f {x,y} M, then let M(x) denote the correspondng partner y of agent x; otherwse we call {x, y} unmatched. We wrte M(x) = f agent x has no partner,.e., f agent x s not nvolved n any par n M. An unmatched par {x, y} E(G)\ M s blockng M f the par prefers to be matched wth each other rather than stayng n ther current state,.e., t holds that (M(x) = y x M(x)) (M(y) = x y M(y)). A matchng M s stable f no unmatched par s blockng M. When the preferences may contan tes, our stablty concept s sometmes referred to as weak stablty n the lterature to dstngush from two other popular stablty concepts, called strong stablty and super stablty [26]. When the preferences do not contan tes, all these three stablty concepts are 4

5 equvalent. In ths work, we only focus on weak stablty. For brevty s sake, we thus smply use stablty to refer to weak stablty. Example 2.1. Consder the followng profle: agent 1: , agent 2: , agent 3: , agent 4: It admts exactly two stable matchngs: M 1 = {{1,2},{3,4}}, and M 2 = {{1,4}, {2,3}}; both are perfect,.e., each agent s assgned a partner. However, f agent 3 changes ts preference order to , then the resultng profle does not admt any stable matchng: One can check that for each matchng, any agent, 1 3, that s matched to agent 4 wll form a blockng par together wth the agent that s at the thrd poston of the preference order of. We nvestgate the computatonal complexty of the followng stable matchng problem. Stable Roommates Input: A preference profle P for a set V = {1,2,...,2 n} of 2 n agents. Queston: Does P admt a stable matchng? 2.3 Preference profles and ther propertes A preference profle P for V s a collecton ( ) V of preference orders for each agent V. A profle P may have one ore more of the followng three smple propertes: Completeness. Profle P s complete f for each agent V t holds that V( ) {} = V ; otherwse t s ncomplete. Tes. Profle P has a te f there s an agent V and there are two dstnct agents x,y V( ) wth x y. Note that lnear orders are exactly those orders that are complete and have no tes. Narcsssm. Profle P s narcssstc f each agent strctly prefers tself to every other acceptable agent,.e., for each j V( )\{} t holds that j. The profle gven n Example 2.1 are complete and narcssstc, and contans one te. We note that havng complete preferences means that any two dstnct agents can be matched wth each other. Thus, a stable matchng must be perfect,.e., each agent must be assgned a partner by a stable matchng. As for the narcssstc property alone, there s no restrcton on or guarantee for the exstence of a stable matchng. We wll, however, see that for some varants of restrcted preferences (such as sngle-peaked or sngle-crossng preferences as formally defned below) requrng the preferences to be addtonally narcssstc make a dfference. As already dscussed n Secton 1, the sngle-peaked and the sngle-crossng propertes were orgnally ntroduced and studed manly for lnear preference orders (.e., preferences wthout tes). For preferences wth tes, a natural generalzaton s to thnk of a possble lnear extenson of the preferences for whch the sngle-peaked or sngle-crossng property holds. We consder ths varant n our paper. 5

6 postons n preferences agents (alternatves) 1: : : : : : : : (a) Vsualzaton of sngle-peaked preferences. (b) Vsualzaton of sngle-crossng preferences. Fgure 2: Illustratng the restrcted profle from Example 2.1 whch has complete preferences wth tes that are narcssstc, sngle-peaked, and sngle-crossng. Sngle-peakedness. Profle s sngle-peaked f there s a lnear order over V such that the preference order of each agent s sngle-peaked wth respect to : x,y,z V( ) wth x y z t holds that (x y mples y z). We refer to as sngle-peaked order of the profle. Example 2.2. The profle gven n Example 2.1 s sngle-peaked, as can be shown by Fgure 2a. In fact, as we wll see n Secton 3, a narcssstc and sngle-peaked preference profle always admts a stable matchng. Recall that f agent 3 changes ts preference order to , then the resultng profle does not admt any stable matchng and, ndeed, t s also not snglepeaked anymore. (Te-Senstve) Sngle-crossngness. Just as for the sngle-peakedness property, the snglecrossngness property also requres a natural lnear order of the agents, the so-called snglecrossng order. However, unlke the sngle-peakedness property whch assumes that the preferences of an agent over two agents are compared by ther dstance to the peak along the sngle-peaked order, the sngle-crossngness property assumes that the agents preferences over each two dstnct agents change (cross) at most once. In fact, for preferences wth tes, two natural sngle-crossng notons are of nterest. To descrbe them, we ntroduce several notons that together partton a subset of agents accordng to ther preferences over two dstnct agents x and y: Let V[x y] := { V x y} be the subset of agents that strctly prefer x to y, and let V[x y] := { V x y} be the subset of agents that fnd x and y to be of equal value. Frst, we say that proflep s sngle-crossng f there s a lnear extenson ofp to a proflep = ( 1, 2,..., 2 n ) where for each {1,...,2 n} the order s a lnear order on the acceptable set V( ) wth, and there s a lnear order on V such that for each two dstnct agents x and y, P s sngle-crossng wth respect to,.e., V[x y] =, and ether V[x y] V[y x] or V[y x] V[x y]. Fgure 2b shows that the profle used n Example 2.1 s sngle-crossng. Second, we also consder a more restrcted concept of sngle-crossngness whch requres that the agents that have tes towards a par are ordered n the mddle. A profle P s called te-senstve sngle-crossng f there s a lnear order over V such that each par {x,y} of two dstnct 6

7 postons n preferences : : : : agents (alternatves) (a) A Stable Roommates nstance wth narcssstc and sngle-peaked preferences. They are not sngle-crossng because of the followng. To form a sngle-crossng order, due to par {1,4}, agent 1 must be next to agent 3, and agent 2 must be next to agent 4. Moreover, due to par {2,3}, agent 1 must be next to agent 2, and agent 3 must be next to agent 4. All these four condtons, however, cannot be satsfed by a lnear order. 1: : : : : : : : (b) Top: A Stable Roommates nstance wth sngle-crossng preferences, wth a sngle te. They are not te-senstve sngle-crossng snce {2,3,4} mples that and ts reverse are the only possble sngle-crossng orders. But, {1, 2} s nether te-senstve snglecrossng wth respect to nor wth respect to ts reverse. Bottom: A possble lnear extenson, showng sngle-crossngness. Fgure 3: Vsualzaton of preference profles wth dfferent structural propertes. agents s te-senstve sngle-crossng wth respect to,.e., ether V[x y] V[x y] V[y x] or V[y x] V[x y] V[x y]. See Fgure 3 for an llustraton of the dfferent types of restrcted preferences for the case where the preferences are lnear orders. 2.4 Basc observatons for the structural propertes of preferences Incomplete preferences wth tes as used n ths work are only a specal case of partal orders. There are many slghtly dfferent concepts of sngle-peakedness and sngle-crossngness for partal orders [16, 21, 32]. It s known that detectng sngle-peakedness or sngle-crossngness s NPhard for partal orders under most of the concepts studed n the lterature [2, 4, 6, 14, 15, 18]. For partal orders, our two sngle-crossng concepts are ncomparable. In partcular, there are ncomplete preferences wth tes whch are sngle-crossng but not te-senstve sngle-crossng, and the converse also holds. For complete preferences wth tes whch s a restrcted case of partal orders, Elknd et al. [16] showed that te-senstve sngle-crossng preference profles are a strct subset of sngle-crossng preference profles. In the followng, we extend these results by consderng the case when the preferences can be ncomplete. Proposton For preferences wthout tes, te-senstve sngle-crossngness s equvalent to sngle-crossngness. 2. For preferences wth tes, te-senstve sngle-crossngness mples sngle-crossngness. 3. For preferences wth tes, sngle-crossngness does not always mply te-senstve snglecrossngness. 7

8 Proof. The frst statement follows from the observaton that when a profle does not have any tes, the defntons of sngle-crossngness and te-senstve sngle-crossngness concde. As for the second statement, let P = ( ) V be a profle that s te-senstve sngle-crossng wth respect to some lnear order on V. We resolve the tes n the preferences gven n P accordng to an arbtrary order on V and show that ths extended profle s a lnear extenson of the profle P and s sngle-crossng wth respect to. To ths end, let be an arbtrary but fxed lnear order on V and let P = ( ) V be a copy of the profle P wth =, V. For each agent V and for each par {x,y} V( ) of agents acceptable to such that x y, let x y f and only f x y. For each agent snce the preference order s a weak order on V( ), t must hold that. for each acceptable agents x,y of we have that x y mples x y. (1) Frst of all, we clam that P s a lnear extenson of P. For the sake of contradcton, suppose that there s a voter such that s not a lnear extenson of. Snce and snce does not nclude any tes, the assumpton that s not a lnear extenson of means that there are three acceptable agents x,y,z V( ) wth x y, y z, and z x. (2) By (1), we nfer that x y, y z, and z x. By the transtvty of, these three relatons mply that x y, y z, and z x. Ths means that the parwse relatve orders of x,y,z n are resolved accordng to the order, that s, x y, y z, and z x a contradcton to beng transtve. It remans to show that P = ( ) V s sngle-crossng wth respect to. Suppose towards a contradcton that P s not sngle-crossng wth respect to, and suppose that there are three agents,j,k n the order j k and there are two acceptable agentsx,y V( ) V( j ) V( k ) such that x y, y j x, and x k y. By (1), we nfer that x y, y j x, and x k y. (3) We dstngush between two cases for x j y, n each case amng at reachng a contradcton. If x j y, then by (2) t follows that y x and that (y x) and (y k x). Thus, by (3), t follows that x y and x k y a contradcton to beng a te-senstve sngle-crossng order for P. If y j x, then snce s a te-senstve sngle-crossng order for P and by (3) t follows that (x y) or (x k y). Ths mples that x y or x k y. If x y, then y k x a contradcton to (3). If x k y, then y k x agan a contradcton to (3). Fgure 3b demonstrates that for preferences wth tes, the converse of the second statement n Proposton 2.1 does not hold, showng the thrd statement. For ncomplete preferences wth tes, Lackner [32] showed that detectng sngle-peakedness s NP-complete. For complete preferences wth tes, whle Elknd et al. [16] showed that detectng sngle-crossngness s NP-complete, Ftzsmmons [20] and Elknd et al. [16] provded polynomaltme algorthms for detectng sngle-peakedness and tes-senstve sngle-crossngness. All these known hardness results seem to hold only when the preferences have tes. However, we observe that the hardness reducton for Corollary 6 by Elknd et al. [16] ndeed can be adapted to show NP-completeness for decdng whether an ncomplete preference profle wthout tes s snglepeaked (resp. sngle-crossng). The crucal dfferences are that they allow tes and that the agents and the alternatves are dfferent whle we do not allow tes and our agent set s the same as the set of alternatves. For the sake of completeness, we show ths adapted proof. 8

9 Observaton 2.2. Decdng whether an ncomplete preference profle wthout tes s snglecrossng (or equvalently te-senstve sngle-crossng) or sngle-peaked s NP-complete. Proof. As Elknd et al. [16], we reduce from the NP-hard Betweenness problem [41]: Betweenness Input: Gven a unverse U = {u 1,...,u n } and a set T = {t 1,...,t m } of ordered trples over U. Queston: Is there a betweenness order, that s, a total lnear order over U such that for each trple (x,y,z) from T t holds that ether x y z or z y x? The reducton for the sngle-peaked case s qute smple whle the reducton for the sngle-crossng case s smlar to the one used by Elknd et al. [16, Corollary 6]. The sngle-peaked case. Gven an nstance I = (U,T) of Betweenness, where U = {u 1,...,u n } and T = {t 1,...,u m }, we construct a preference profle P = ( x ) x V for an agent set V, whose preferences contan no tes but may be ncomplete; wthout loss of generalty we assume that the elements n each ordered trple (x,y,z) T are parwse dstnct. The agent set V has two types of agents, whch sum up to n + 2m agents. Frst, for each element u add to V an element agent wth the same name. Second, for each trple t j = (x,y,z) from T (wth x,y,z U) add to V two agents a j and a j. The preferences of the agents are constructed as follows: Each agent u U only fnds those agents acceptable that contan the correspondng element, and has a lnear order on these acceptable agents that are consstent wth the followng order Formally, the preferences of agent u are L := a 1 a m a 1 a m. u : [A(u )] [A [u ]], where A(u ) = {a j u t j } (resp. A (u ) = {a j u t j }) and [A(u )] [A (u )] s a lnear order on A(u ) A (u )) that respects L. For each trple t j = (x,y,z) T, the preferences of a j and a j are aj : y x z and a j : y z x. We show that P s sngle-peaked f and only f the gven nstance s a yes-nstance. On the one hand, every betweenness order for I = (U,T) can be extended to a sngle-peaked order for the constructed profle by appendng to the order a 1 a m a 1 a m. On the other hand, note that the preferences of the agents of the second type requre a sngle-peaked order to place element y n between x and z. Thus, a sngle-peaked order for P restrcted to U s always a betweenness order for (U,T). The sngle-crossng case. Gven an nstance I = (U, T) of Betweenness, where U = {u 1,...,u n } and T = {t 1,...,t m }, we construct a preference profle P = ( x ) x V for an agent set V, whose preferences contan no tes but may be ncomplete; wthout loss of generalty we assume that the elements n each ordered trple (x,y,z) T are parwse dstnct. The agent set V has two types of agents, whch sum up to n+3m agents. Frst, for each element u add to V an element agent wth the same name. Second, for each trple t j = (x,y,z) from T (wth x,y,z U) add to V three agents a j,b j,c j. Before we descrbe the preferences, let us descrbe the acceptablty graph: For each trple t j = (x,y,z) from T (wth x,y,z U) we have V( aj ) = V( bj ) = V( cj ) = {x,y,z}. 9

10 Symmetrcally, for each element agent u U, we have V(u ) = {a j,b j,c j u t j }. For ease of notaton, for each trple t j T, let T j := {a j,b j,c j }. For each trple t j = (x,y,z) from T, the agents a j, b j, and c j have the same lnear order on {x,y,z}, whch s ascendng on the ndces of x,y,z n U. For each element agent u U, ts preferences on V( u ) are as follows: Frst of all, for each two trples t j and t j that contan the element u, we have u : T j T j. The specfc order on the trple agents n T j (resp. T j ) depends on the poston of u n the trple t j. To ths end, let L x j := a j b j c j, L y j := b j a j c j, L z j := c j b j a j. To make the preferences of u a lnear order, for each trple t j = (x,y,z) T that contans the element u, let the element agent u have preferences that obey the order L k j f and only f u = k. We show that P s sngle-crossng f and only f the gven nstance s a yes-nstance. On the one hand, a sngle-crossng order for the constructed profle restrcted to U s a betweenness order for (U,T): For every trple trple t j = (x,y,z) from T the preferences of x, y, and z restrcted to T j mply that ether x y z or z y x. On the other hand, a betweenness order for (U,S) can be extended to a sngle-crossng order for the constructed profle by appendng the order a 1 b 1 c 1 a m b m c m to ts end. Saport and Tohmé [47] showed that for complete preferences wthout tes, narcssstc and sngle-crossng preferences are also sngle-peaked. We strengthen ths result by showng that the relaton also holds when tes are allowed. We note that although Barberà and Moreno [3] also consdered complete preferences wth tes, ther sngle-crossngness for the case wth tes only resembles our te-senstve sngle-crossng defnton, whch s a strct subset of the snglecrossngness defned n Secton 2.3 (see Proposton 2.1). Proposton 2.3. If a complete, even wth tes, and narcssstc preference profle P has a sngle-crossng order, then ths order s also a sngle-peaked order. Proof. Suppose for the sake of contradcton that wth a 1 a 2 a 2 n s not sngle-peaked. Ths means that there exsts an agent a that s not sngle-peaked wth respect to, and there are three agents a j,a k,a l wth j < k < l such that a j a a k and a l a a k. Together wth the property of beng narcssstc, the followng holds: agent a : a a a j a a k and a a a l a a k, agent a j : a j aj a k, agent a k : a k ak a j and a k ak a l, agent a l : a l al a k. On the one hand, the agents preferences over the par {a j,a k } mples that < k. On the other hand, the par {a k,a l } mples that > k a contradcton. The profle shown n Fgure 2 s narcssstc and sngle-crossng wth respect to the order and t s also sngle-peaked wth respect to the same order. There s no drect relaton between sngle-peakedness and sngle-crossngness, even f the profle s complete and do note contan tes [7]. Proposton 2.4. [7, Fgure 1] Even for complete preference profles wthout tes, sngle-peakedness does not mply sngle-crossngness. Nether does sngle-crossngness mply sngle-peakedness. 10

11 3 Complete preferences In ths secton, we analyze the computatonal complexty of Stable Roommates for the case when the nput preference profles have complete and structured preferences. In partcular, we show that the n general NP-hard Stable Roommates problem wth tes allowed becomes polynomal-tme solvable when the preferences are narcssstc and ether sngle-crossng or snglepeaked. For the case of complete, narcssstc, and sngle-peaked preferences wthout tes, Barthold III and Trck [4] showed that Stable Roommates s even solvable n O(n) tme. Ther algorthm s based on the followng two facts (referred to as Propostons 3.1 and 3.2) that are related to the concept of most acceptable agents. We show that the facts transfer to the case wth tes. Proposton 3.1. If the gven preference profle P s complete (even wth tes), narcssstc, and sngle-peaked, then there are two dstnct agents, j that are each other s most acceptable agents. Proof. The statement for complete, narcssstc, and sngle-peaked preferences wthout tes was shown by Barthold III and Trck [4]. It turns out that ths also holds for the case when tes are allowed. Let V be the set of all 2 n agents and consder a sngle-peaked order of the agents V wth x 1 x 2 x n. For each agent x V, let M x be the set of all most acceptable agents of x. Towards a contradcton, suppose that each two dstnct agents x and y have x / M y or y / M x. By the narcssstc property and sngle-peakedness, each M x {x} forms an nterval n. Ths mples that the frst agent x 1 and the last agent x n n the order have x 2 M x1 and x n 1 M xn. By our assumpton (x / M y or y / M x ), however, x 2 M x1 mples that for each {2,...,n} the followng holds: x 1 / M x a contradcton to x n 1 M xn. By the stablty defnton, we have the followng for complete preferences. Proposton 3.2. Let P be a preference profle wth complete preferences and let M be a stable matchng for P. Let P be a preference profle resultng from P by addng two agents x,y who consder each other as most acceptable (and ther preferences over other agents and the preferences of other agents over x, y are arbtrary but fxed, respectvely). Then, matchng M {{x,y}} s stable for P. Proof. Suppose for the sake of contradcton that M {{x,y}} s not stable for P. Ths means that P has a blockng par {u,w} / M. Obvously, {u,w} {x,y} = 1 as otherwse {u,w} would also be a blockng par for P. Assume wthout loss of generalty that u = x. Then, by the defnton of blockng pars, t must hold that w x y a contradcton to y beng one of the most acceptable agents of x. Utlzng restrcted versons of Propostons 3.1 and 3.2, Barthold III and Trck [4] derved a greedy algorthm to construct a unque stable matchng when the preferences are lnear orders (.e., complete and wthout tes) and are narcssstc and sngle-peaked (see Algorthm 1). For 2 n agents ther algorthm runs n O(n) tme. We wll show that Algorthm 1 also works when tes are allowed. The stable matchng, however, may not be unque anymore and the runnng tme s O(n 2 ) snce we need to update the preferences of each agent after we match one par of two agents. Theorem 3.3. A preference profle wth 2 n agents that s complete, wth tes, narcssstc and sngle-peaked always admts a stable matchng, whch can be found by Algorthm 1 n O(n 2 ) tme. Proof. To show that such a profle P always admts a stable matchng, we show that on nput P Algorthm 1 always returns a matchng of P whch s stable. Indeed, the latter follows drectly 11

12 Algorthm 1: The algorthm of Barthold III and Trck [4] for computng a stable matchng wth nput P beng complete, narcssstc, and sngle-peaked. M ; whle P do Fnd two agents x,y n P that consder each other as most acceptable; Delete x and y from profle P; M M {x,y}; return M; from Propostons 3.1 and 3.2 and the narcssstc and sngle-peaked property s preserved after deletng any agent. As for the runnng tme, there are n rounds to buld up M, and n each round we fnd two dstnct agents x and y whose most acceptable agent sets M x and M y nclude each other: x M y and y M x. Note that Proposton 3.1 mples that two such agents exst. After each round we need to update the most acceptable agents of at most 2 n agents. Thus, n total the runnng tme s O(n 2 ). Now, we move on to (te-senstve) sngle-crossngness. Proposton 3.4. A preference profle wth 2 n agents that s complete, wth tes, narcssstc and sngle-crossng (or te-senstve sngle-crossng) always admts a stable matchng, whch can be found by Algorthm 1 n O(n 2 ) tme. The runnng tme for the case wthout tes s O(n). Proof. By Proposton 2.3 and Proposton 2.1 (), the stated profles are sngle-peaked. For the case wth tes, by Theorem 3.3, we obtan the desred statement. For the case wthout tes, we obtan the correspondng O(n) runnng tme by addtonally usng the result of Barthold III and Trck [4, Secton 3]. 4 Incomplete preferences In ths secton, we consder the case when the nput preferences may be ncomplete, meanng that the underlyng acceptablty graph may not be a complete graph. One reason for the occurrence of ncomplete preferences could be that two agents may consder each other unacceptable and do not want to be matched together, or they are not allowed to be matched to each other. If n ths case no two agents are consdered of equal value by any agent (.e., the preferences do not have tes), then Stable Roommates stll remans polynomal-tme solvable [26]. However, once tes are nvolved, Stable Roommates becomes NP-complete [43] even for complete preferences. Frst of all, we observe that once tes are allowed, nether sngle-peakedness nor snglecrossngness, combned wth narcsssm, can guarantee that there are always two agents that are each other s most acceptable agent. However, havng such two agents s crucal for the exstence of a stable matchng so that the algorthm by Barthold III and Trck [4] can work n tme lnear n the number of agents. Moreover, for ncomplete preferences, even wthout tes, narcssstc and sngle-crossng preferences do not mply sngle-peakedness anymore. Proposton 4.1. For ncomplete preferences wthout tes, the followng holds. 1. Narcssstc and sngle-crossng preferences are not necessarly sngle-peaked. 2. Narcssstc and sngle-peaked (resp. sngle-crossng) preferences guarantee nether the unqueness nor the exstence of stable matchngs. 12

13 Proof. To show the frst statement, consder the followng profle wth sx agents 1, 2,..., 6: Profle P 1 : agent 1: , agent 2: , agent 3: , agent 4: , agent 5: , agent 6: One can check that the profle s narcssstc, and t s sngle-crossng wth respect to the order 1 2 6, but t s not sngle-peaked because of the last two agents preference orders over 1,2,3,4. In fact, the profle s not sngle-peaked at all snce the preference orders of agents 5 and 6 form a forbdden subprofle for the sngle-peaked property [2]: In a sngle-peaked order the agents 2 and 3 must be ordered between the agents 1 and 4 but agent 5 s preferences forbd to put agent 3 next to 1 whereas agent 6 s preferences forbd to put agent 2 next to agent 1. The profle does not admt a perfect stable matchng,.e., a stable matchng of sze three. But, t admts two stable matchngs of sze two each: {{1, 5},{4, 6}} and {{1, 6},{4, 5}}. To show the frst part of the second statement, consder the followng profle wth four agents 1, 2, 3, 4. Once can check that the profle s narcssstc and sngle-peaked wth respect to the order , and sngle-crossng wth respect to the order It admts two dfferent stable matchngs {{1, 2},{3, 4}} and {{1, 3},{2, 4}}. Profle P 2 : Agent 1: , Agent 2: 2 4 1, Agent 3: 3 1 4, Agent 4: To show the second part of the second statement, consder the followng profle wth sx agents 1,2,...,6. It s narcssstc, and sngle-peaked and sngle-crossng wth respect to the order Profle P 3 : Agent 1: 1 5 2, Agent 2: 2 1 3, Agent 3: 3 2 4, Agent 4: 4 3 5, Agent 5: , Agent 6: 6 5. One can check that the profle s sngle-peaked wth respect to the order. For snglecrossngness, observe that each par of agents s ranked by at most two dfferent agents so that the profle s (te-senstve) sngle-crossng wth respect to any orderng. However, no matchng M s stable for ths profle. To see ths, notce that the preferences of agents from A := {1,2,3,4,5} form a certan cyclc structure: For each agent A t holds that agent s the most preferred agent of agent ( mod 5) + 1. Now, consder an arbtrary matchng M. Snce A s odd, there s at least one agent A wth M() / A. It s straghtforward to see that and ( mod 5)+1 wll form a blockng par for M. For the case when tes n the preferences are allowed, Ronn [43] showed that Stable Roommates becomes NP-hard even f the preferences are complete. The constructed nstances n hs hardness proof, however, are not always sngle-peaked or sngle-crossng. It s even not clear whether the problem remans NP-hard for ths restrcted case. If the preferences need not be complete, then we show NP-hardness, by a completely dfferent reducton, obtanng our man result. Before we state the correspondng theorem, we prove the followng two lemmas whch are used heavly n our preference profle constructon to force two agents of specfc types to be matched together. The frst lemma summarzes an observaton on a profle that s smlar to the thrd profle P 3 presented n the proof of Proposton

14 Lemma 4.2. Let A = {a 1,a 2,a 3,a 4,a 5 } be a set of 5 dstnct agents and let X be a non-empty set of agents dsjont from A. The preferences of the agents n A satsfy the followng, where (X) means that the agents n set X are ted wth each other. Agent a 1 : a 1 a 5 a 2, Agent a 2 : a 2 a 1 a 3, Agent a 3 : a 3 a 2 a 4, Agent a 4 : a 4 a 3 a 5, Agent a 5 : a 5 (X) a 4 a 1. Then, the followng holds. (1) Every stable matchng M for A satsfes M(a 5 ) X, M(a 1 ) = a 2, and M(a 3 ) = a 4. (2) The preferences from A are narcssstc and sngle-peaked wth respect to the lnear order a 3 a 2 a 1 a 4 a 5 [X], where [X] denotes some fxed lnear order of the agents n X. (3) The preferences are also (te-senstve) sngle-crossng wth respect to any orderng of the agents n A. Proof. Towards a contradcton to (1), suppose that there s a stable matchng M wth M(a 5 ) / X. Then, by the preferences of a 5, there reman three possbltes () () for the partner of a 5. We clam to obtan a blockng par for M for each of these possbltes. Case (): M(a 5 ) / {a 1,a 4 }. Ths mples that agent a 5 does not have a partner. Then, by constructon, {a 5,a 1 } wll be blockng M. Case (): M(a 5 ) = a 4. Snce a 4 prefers a 3 to a 5, t follows that a 3 must obtan a partner that t prefers to a 4 as otherwse {a 3,a 4 } wll form a blockng par for M. Snce a 2 s the only (acceptable) agent that a 3 prefers to a 4, t follows that {a 3,a 2 } M. Consequently, a 1 wll not be assgned a partner by M. However, {a 1,a 2 } wll form a blockng par for M. Case (): M(a 5 ) = a 1. Analogously to Case (), f M(a 5 ) = a 1, then we deduce that M(a 4 ) = a 3. Ths mples that a 2 remans unmatched by M. However, {a 2,a 3 } wll form a blockng par for M. It s straghtforward to verfy the second statement concernng the sngle-peaked property. As for the te-senstve sngle-crossngness, t holds wth respect to every order of the agents: Each par of agents s ranked by at most two dfferent agents and tes only occur n the preferences of a 5. Whereas Lemma 4.2 enforces that a specfc agent (.e., a 5 ) must be matched wth some agent from a specfc group of agents (.e., X), the forthcomng lemma enforces some specfc combnaton of matchngs nsde X. Ths seems crucal to ensure the narcssstc, sngle-peaked, and te-senstve sngle-crossng property. Lemma 4.3. Let X := {x 1,x 2,...,x 10 }, R := {r 2,r 4,r 6,r 8 } be two dsjont sets of agents, and let A and B be two other dsjont sets of agents. Furthermore, assume that the preferences of the agents from X satsfy the followng, where the symbols [A] and [B] denote some fxed lnear orders of the agents n A and B, respectvely. Agent x 1 : x 1 x 10 [A] x 2, Agent x 2 : x 2 x 1 r 2 x 3. Agent x 3 : x 3 x 2 x 4, Agent x 4 : x 4 x 3 r 4 x 5. Agent x 5 : x 5 x 4 x 6. Agent x 6 : x 6 x 5 r 6 x 7. Agent x 7 : x 7 x 6 x 8. Agent x 8 : x 8 x 7 r 8 x 9. Agent x 9 : x 9 x 8 x 10. Agent x 10 : x 10 x 9 [B] x 1. The followng holds for the preferences of X. 1. If M s a stable matchng wth M(x 10 ) B, then for each {4,3,2,1} we have that {x 2+1,x 2 } M. 14

15 r 2 r 4 a 2 a 1 a 5 X A B x 1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 10 x 9 x 8 x 7 x 6 a 3 a 4 r 8 r 6 Fgure 4: Illustraton of the acceptablty graphs for Lemmas 4.2 and 4.3. Left: The node labeled wth X represents the agents n X. Thck red lnes correspond to a possble stable matchng. Rght: The nodes labeled wth A and B represent the agents n A and B, respectvely. There are two possble stable matchngs, one represented by thck red lnes and the other by double lnes. 2. The above preferences are narcssstc as well as sngle-peaked and te-senstve snglecrossng wth respect to the followng order, where [A] and [B] denote the reverse of the fxed orders [A] and [B], respectvely: [A] [B] x 10 x 9 x 1 x 2 r 2 x 3 x 4 r 4 x 5 x 6 r 6 x 7 x 8 r 8. Proof. By our assumpton that M(x 10 ) B and by the preference order of x 10, t follows that M(x 9 ) = x 8 as otherwse {x 9,x 10 } wll form a blockng par for M. By an analogous reasonng for x 7, x 5, and x 3, we deduce that M(x 7 ) = x 6, M(x 5 ) = x 4, and M(x 3 ) = x 2, showng the frst statement. As for the second statement, clearly, the preferences of the agents n X, are narcssstc. One can check that the preferences are ndeed sngle-peaked wth respect to the order. Snce no two agents are ranked by more than two dfferent agents, t s clear that the preferences are te-senstve sngle-crossng, mplyng sngle-crossngness due to Proposton 2.1. We observe that the acceptablty graph for the agents n Lemma 4.2 and Lemma 4.3 dsplay a certan cyclc structure f we make the edges drected: If we replace each edge {u,w} wth the arc (u,w) f u consders w ts most preferred (matchable) agent and delete the remanng edges, then we obtan a drected cycle. Moreover, we have already seen from P 3 n the proof of Proposton 4.1 that odd cycles mply non-exstence of stable matchngs. Usng ths observaton, we can show our man result now. Theorem 4.4. Stable Roommates for ncomplete preferences wth tes remans NP-complete, even f the preferences are narcssstc, sngle-peaked, and (te-senstve) sngle-crossng. Proof. Frst, the problem s n NP snce one can non-determnstcally guess a matchng and check the stablty n polynomal tme. To show NP-hardness, we reduce from the NP-complete Independent Set problem [24], whch, gven an undrected graph G = (U,E) and a nonnegatve nteger k, asks whether there s a sze-k ndependent set,.e., a subset U U of k parwsely non-adjacent vertces. We assume that each vertex has degree at most three snce Independent Set remans NP-hard for ths case [23]. Let (G = (U,E),k) be an Independent Set nstance wth U beng the vertex set and E beng the edge set. Let U := {u 1,u 2,...,u n }. We wll construct a Stable Roommates nstance P wth agent set V whch s narcssstc, sngle-peaked, and te-senstve sngle-crossng, and show that G admts a sze-k ndependent set f and only f P admts a stable matchng. 15

16 Man dea and the constructed agents. For each vertex u U, we ntroduce 10 vertex agents u j, 1 j 10, denoted as U = {u j 1 j 10}. The dea s to obtan an acceptablty graph that has a cycle of length ten (see our dscusson just pror to the theorem) for each vertex of the nput graph, ncludng eght for the neghbors of ths vertex. Ths s used to ensure narcssstc, sngle-peaked, and sngle-crossng property smultaneously. Addtonally, we ntroduce two groups of selector agents, each wth k sets: Group (1): A j = {a j 1 5}, 1 j k, and Group (2): B j = {b j 1 5}, 1 j k. We wll construct preferences for these selector agents to enforce that each two selectors a 5 j and b 5 j, 1 j k, are matched to two vertex agents. Together wth the preferences of the vertex agents, we make sure that the vertex agents that are matched to a 5 j and b5 j, respectvely, correspond to the same vertex. ( ( ) The agent set V s defned as V = 1 n ) U 1 j k (A j B j ). In total, we have constructed 10n + 10k agents. To encode an Independent Set nstance, we am to construct preferences for the vertex agents such that no two vertex agents that are matched to some selector agents correspond to two adjacent vertces. Ths property wll be formally captured later by Clam 1. Selector agents. The preferences of the selector agents are of the form as descrbed n Lemma 4.2. To ths end, let U 1 = {u 1 1 n} and U 10 = {u 10 1 n}. We use (U 1 ) and (U 10 ) to express that the agents n the respectve subsets are ted. j {1,2,...,k}: selector agent a 1 j : a1 j a5 j a2 j, selector agent b1 j : b1 j b5 j b2 j, selector agent a 2 j : a2 j a1 j a3 j, selector agent b2 j : b2 j b1 j b3 j, selector agent a 3 j : a3 j a2 j a4 j, selector agent b3 j : b3 j b2 j b4 j, selector agent a 4 j : a4 j a3 j a5 j, selector agent b4 j : b4 j b3 j b5 j, selector agent a 5 j: a 5 j (U 1 ) a 4 j a 1 j. selector agent b 5 j: b 5 j (U 10 ) b 4 j b 1 j. Vertex agents. The preferences of the vertex agents for each vertex u are of the form descrbed n Lemma 4.3. {1,2,...,n}: vertex agent u 1 : u 1 u 10 [A 5 ] u 2, vertex agent u 2 : u 2 u 1 r 2 u 3, vertex agent u 3 : u3 u2 u4, vertex agent u4 : u4 u3 r4 u5, vertex agent u 5 : u 5 u 4 u 6, vertex agent u 6 : u 6 u 5 r 6 u 7, vertex agent u 7 : u7 u6 u8, vertex agent u8 : u8 u7 r8 u9, vertex agent u 9 : u 9 u 8 u 10, vertex agent u 10 : u 10 u 9 [B 5 ] u 1. Heren, A 5 represents the followng set A 5 := {a 5 j 1 j k} and [A5 ] denotes the followng fxed order of the selector agents n A 5 : [A 5 ] := a 5 1 a5 2 a5 k. The symbols B5 and [B 5 ] are defned n an analogous way: B 5 := {b 5 j 1 j k} and [B5 ] denotes the followng fxed order of the selector agents n B 5 : [B 5 ] := b 5 1 b5 2 b5 k. 16

17 It remans to specfy the agents r 2, r4, r6, and r8. Recall that the maxmum vertex degree of our nput graph G s three. By Vzng s Theorem [49], graph G s 4-edge-colorable, that s, the edge set of G can be parttoned nto four subsets E 1, E 2, E 3, and E 4 whch are each a matchng. Moreover, ths partton can be computed n polynomal tme [39]. Thus, we frst compute the sets E c, 1 c 4. Next, for each 1 c 4, f E c contans an edge e = {u,u j }, then we defne r 2c := u 2c j (resp. rj 2c := u 2c ). If some vertex u s not ncdent to an edge of color c, then r 2c s omtted, that s, agent u 2c has just the rankng u 2c u 2c 1 u 2c+1. For an llustraton, assume that e 1 E 1 and e 4 E 2 wth e 1 = {u 1,u 2 } and e 4 = {u 1,u 3 }. Then, r1 2,r2 2,r4 1,r4 3 are of the form r2 1 = u2 2, r2 2 = u2 1, r4 1 = u4 3, r4 3 = u4 1. Ths completes the constructon, whch can clearly be performed n polynomal tme. Next, we show that our constructed profle s narcssstc, sngle-peaked, sngle-crossng, and te-senstve sngle-crossng. Sngle-peakedness. The constructed profle s sngle-peaked wth respect to the followng lnear order : [A k ] [A k 1 ] [A 1 ] [B k ] [B k 1 ] [B 1 ] [U 10,9 ] [U 1,2 ] [U 3,4 ] [U 5,6 ] [U 7,8 ]. We specfy the notatons used n the above order. For each j {1,2,...,k} and for each (Q,q) {(A,a),(B,b)}, the let [Q j ] denote the order qj 3 q2 j q1 j q4 j q5 j (cf. Lemma 4.2). The symbol U 10,9 denotes the order u 10 1 u10 2 u10 n u 9 1 u9 2 u9 n. For each c {1,2,3,4} the symbol U 2c 1,2c denotes the subset {u 2c 1,u 2c 1 n}. Intutvely, the symbol [U 2c 1,2c ] denotes an order of the agents n U 2c 1,2c, whch makes sure that the preferences of vertex agents that are ncdent to the edges n E c are sngle-peaked wth respect to ths order. To defne [U 2c 1,2c ], we need the followng addtonal noton: For each edge e E c let u and u j be the respectve endponts wth < j. Then, let [e] denote the order u 2c 1 u 2c u 2c 1 j u 2c j. The order [U 2c 1,2c ] s defned as follows: [U 2c 1,2c ] := [e c,1 ] [e c,2 ] [e c,l ] [R], where e c,1,e c,2,...,e c,l s an arbtrary but fxed order of the edges n E c, and R denotes a fxed order of the vertex agents u of the form u 2c 1 u 2c that are not ncdent to any edge n E c. For an llustraton, assume that E 1 = {e 1,e 2 } wth e 1 = {u 1,u 2 } and e 2 = {u 5,u 6 }. Then, [U 1,2 ] could be of the form u 1 1 u2 1 u1 2 u2 2 u1 5 u2 5 u1 6 u2 6 u1 3 u2 3 u1 4 u2 4. Te-sngle-crossngness and sngle-crossngness. To show that the constructed preference profle s also te-senstve sngle-crossng we consder each par p of agents and let Ac(p) denote the agents whch consder both agents n p as acceptable partners. We show that ether all agents n Ac(p) have the same order on p or f two agents exst that order p dfferently, then Ac(p) = 2. It s straght-forward to verfy that f we can show the above statement, then the profle s te-senstve sngle-crossng, and t s sngle-crossng by breakng tes n an arbtrary but fxed way. To ths end, let A 5 = {a 5 j 1 j k}, B5 = {b 5 j 1 j k}, U1 = {u 1 1 n}, and U 10 = {u 10 1 n}. Case 1: p = {a z j,az j } A j (resp. p = {b z j,bz j } B j) for some value j {1,2,...,k} and some values z,z {1,2,3,4,5}. Ths mples that Ac(p) A j (resp. A(p) B j ). Moreover, no agent n Ac(p) consders the agents n p to be ted wth each other. If there 17