Matching (graph theory)
set of edges without common vertices

In the mathematical discipline of graph theory, a matching or independent edge set in an undirected graph is a set of edges without common vertices. In other words, a subset of the edges is a matching if each vertex appears in at most one edge of that matching.
Finding a largest matching in a bipartite graph can be treated as a network flow problem. Finding a largest matching in a general graph is much more difficult; it can be done using Edmonds' blossom algorithm.
Definitions
Given a graph G = (V, E), a matching M in G is a set of pairwise non-adjacent edges, none of which are loops; that is, no two edges share common vertices.
M
{\displaystyle M}
is a matching of
U
⊆
V
{\displaystyle U\subseteq V}
if every vertex in
U
{\displaystyle U}
is incident with an edge in
M
{\displaystyle M}
.
A vertex is matched (or saturated) if it is an endpoint of one of the edges in the matching. Otherwise the vertex is unmatched (or unsaturated).
A maximal matching is a matching M of a graph G that is not a subset of any other matching. A matching M of a graph G is maximal if every edge in G has a non-empty intersection with at least one edge in M. The following figure shows examples of maximal matchings (red) in three graphs.
“Matching (graph theory)” enters the record as set of edges without common vertices. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Matching, graph and theory can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Matching (graph theory)” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Matching, graph and theory provides the most credible route into that argument.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 13, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q1065144. The Library of Congress control number is sh85082044. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 1 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Matching (graph theory)”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Matching (graph theory) primary sources, Matching (graph theory) archive and Matching research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Matching (graph theory)”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Matching (graph theory)” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.