Online matching has received significant attention over the last 15 years due to its close connection to Internet advertising. As the seminal work of Karp, Vazirani, and Vazirani has an optimal (1−1/e) competitive ratio in the standard adversarial online model, much effort has gone into developing useful online models that incorporate some stochasticity in the arrival process. One such popular model is the "known I.I.D. model" where different customer-types arrive online from a known distribution. We develop algorithms with improved competitive ratios for some basic variants of this model with integral arrival rates, including: (a) the case of general weighted edges, where we improve the best-known ratio of 0.667 due to Haeupler, Mirrokni and Zadimoghaddam [12] to 0.705; and (b) the vertex-weighted case, where we improve the 0.7250 ratio of Jaillet and Lu [13] to 0.7299.We also consider an extension of stochastic rewards, a variant where each edge has an independent probability of being present. For the setting of stochastic rewards with non-integral arrival rates, we present a simple optimal non-adaptive algorithm with a ratio of 1 − 1/e. For the special case where each edge is unweighted and has a uniform constant probability of being present, we improve upon 1 − 1/e by proposing a strengthened LP benchmark.One of the key ingredients of our improvement is the following (offline) approach to bipartitematching polytopes with additional constraints. We first add several valid constraints in order to get a good fractional solution f; however, these give us less control over the structure of f. We next remove all these additional constraints and randomly move from f to a feasible point on the matching polytope with all coordinates being from the set {0, 1/k, 2/k, . . . , 1} for a chosen integer k. The structure of this solution is inspired by Jaillet and Lu (Mathematics of Operations Research, 2013) and is a tractable structure for algorithm design and analysis. The appropriate random move preserves many of the removed constraints (approximately with high probability and exactly in expectation). This underlies some of our improvements and could be of independent interest. * A preliminary version of this appeared in the European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA), 2016 † Claim 4. For a large edge e, EW 1 [h] (3) with parameter h achieves a competitive ratio of R[EW 1 , 2/3] = 0.67529 + (1 − h) * 0.00446. Claim 5. For a small edge e of type Γ 1 , EW 1 [h] (3) achieves a competitive ratio of R[EW 1 , 1/3] = 0.751066, regardless of the value h. Claim 6. For a small edge e of type Γ 2 , EW 1 [h] (3) achieves a competitive ratio of R[EW 1 , 1/3] = 0.72933 + h * 0.040415. By setting h = 0.537815, the two types of small edges have the same ratio and we get that EW 1 [h] achieves (R[EW 1 , 2/3], R[EW 1 , 1/3]) = (0.679417, 0.751066). Thus, this proves Lemma 2.
Proof of Claim 4Proof. Consider a large edge e = (u, v 1 ) in the graph G F . Let e ′ = (u, v 2 ) be the other small edge incident to u. Edges e and e ′ can appear in [M ...