# A dual algorithm for the one-machine scheduling problem

- 392 Downloads
- 167 Citations

## Abstract

A branch and bound algorithm is presented for the problem of scheduling*n* jobs on a single machine to minimize tardiness. The algorithm uses a dual problem to obtain a good feasible solution and an extremely sharp lower bound on the optimal objective value. To derive the dual problem we regard the single machine as imposing a constraint for each time period. A dual variable is associated with each of these constraints and used to form a Lagrangian problem in which the dualized constraints appear in the objective function. A lower bound is obtained by solving the Lagrangian problem with fixed multiplier values. The major theoretical result of the paper is an algorithm which solves the Lagrangian problem in a number of steps proportional to the product of*n*^{2} and the average job processing time. The search for multiplier values which maximize the lower bound leads to the formulation and optimization of the dual problem. The bounds obtained are so sharp that very little enumeration or computer time is required to solve even large problems. Computational experience with 20-, 30-, and 50-job problems is presented.

## Keywords

Schedule Problem Feasible Solution Computational Experience Dual Problem Optimal Objective## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- [1]K.R. Baker and J.B. Martin, “An experimental comparison of solution algorithms for the single-machine tardiness problem”,
*Naval Research Logistics Quarterly*21 (1) (1974) 187–199.Google Scholar - [2]K.R. Baker,
*Introduction to sequencing and scheduling*(Wiley, New York, 1974).Google Scholar - [3]D.C. Carroll, “Heuristic sequencing of single and multi-component orders”, Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (June 1965).Google Scholar
- [4]S.E. Elmaghraby, “The one machine sequencing problem with delay costs”,
*Journal of Industrial Engineering*17 (2) (1968).Google Scholar - [5]H. Emmons, “One machine sequencing to minimize certain functions of job tardiness”,
*Operations Research*17 (4) (1969).Google Scholar - [6]M.L. Fisher, “Optimal solution of scheduling problems using Lagrange multipliers: Part I”
*Operations Research*21 (5) (1973) 1114–1127.Google Scholar - [7]M.L. Fisher, W. Northup and J.F. Shapiro, “Constructive duality in discrete optimization”,
*Mathematical Programming*, to appear.Google Scholar - [8]M.L. Fisher and J.F. Shapiro, “Constructive duality in integer programming”,
*SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics*27 (1) (1974).Google Scholar - [9]R.S. Garfinkel and G.L. Nemhauser,
*Integer programming*(Wiley, New York, 1972).Google Scholar - [10]L. Gelders and P.R. Kleindorfer, “Coordinating aggregate and detailed scheduling decisions in the one-machine job shop: Part I, theory”,
*Operations Research*22 (1974) 46–60.Google Scholar - [11]A.M. Geoffrion, “Lagrangian relaxation for integer programming”,
*Mathematical Programming Study*2 (1974) 82–114.Google Scholar - [12]P.C. Gilmore and R.E. Gomory, “A linear programming approach to the cutting-stock problem”,
*Operations Research*19 (1961) 849–859.Google Scholar - [13]G.A. Gorry, J.F. Shapiro and L.A. Wolsey, “Relaxation methods for pure and mixed integer programming problems”,
*Management Science*18 (1972) 229–239.Google Scholar - [14]M. Held and R.M. Karp, “A dynamic programming approach to sequencing problems”,
*SIAM Journal*10 (2) (1962).Google Scholar - [15]M. Held and R.M. Karp, “The travelling-salesman problem and minimum spanning trees: Part II”,
*Mathematical Programming*, 1 (1) (1971) 6–25.Google Scholar - [16]M. Held, P. Wolfe and H.P. Crowder, “Validation of subgradient optimization”,
*Mathematical Programming*6 (1) (1974) 62–88.Google Scholar - [17]W.W. Hogan, R.E. Marsten and J.W. Blankenship, “The BOXSTEP method for large scale optimization”,
*Operations Research*23 (3) (1975) 389–405.Google Scholar - [18]E.L. Lawler, “On scheduling problems with deferral costs”,
*Management Science*9 (4) (1963).Google Scholar - [19]T.L. Morin and R.E. Marsten, “Branch and bound strategies for dynamic programming”,
*Operations Research*24 (4) (1976) 611–627.Google Scholar - [20]G.L. Nemhauser,
*Introduction to dynamic programming*(Wiley, New York, 1966).Google Scholar - [21]A.H.G. Rinnooy Kan, B.J. Lageweg and J.K. Lenstra, “Minimizing total cost in one-machine scheduling”,
*Operations Research*23 (5) (1975) 908–927.Google Scholar - [22]A.H.G. Rinnooy Kan, B.J. Lageweg and J.K. Lenstra, private communication (September 1975).Google Scholar
- [23]J. Shwimer, “On the
*n*-job, one machine, sequence-independent scheduling problem with tardiness penalties: a branch-bound solution”,*Management Science*18 (6) (1972) 301–313.Google Scholar - [24]V. Srinivasan, “A hybrid algorithm for the one machine sequencing problem to minimize total tardiness”,
*Naval Research Logistics Quarterly*18 (3) (1971) 317–327.Google Scholar