Mathematical Programming

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 229–251 | Cite as

A dual algorithm for the one-machine scheduling problem

  • Marshall L. Fisher


A branch and bound algorithm is presented for the problem of schedulingn 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 ofn2 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.


Schedule Problem Feasible Solution Computational Experience Dual Problem Optimal Objective 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [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. [2]
    K.R. Baker,Introduction to sequencing and scheduling (Wiley, New York, 1974).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    D.C. Carroll, “Heuristic sequencing of single and multi-component orders”, Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (June 1965).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    S.E. Elmaghraby, “The one machine sequencing problem with delay costs”,Journal of Industrial Engineering 17 (2) (1968).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    H. Emmons, “One machine sequencing to minimize certain functions of job tardiness”,Operations Research 17 (4) (1969).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    M.L. Fisher, “Optimal solution of scheduling problems using Lagrange multipliers: Part I”Operations Research 21 (5) (1973) 1114–1127.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    M.L. Fisher, W. Northup and J.F. Shapiro, “Constructive duality in discrete optimization”,Mathematical Programming, to appear.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    M.L. Fisher and J.F. Shapiro, “Constructive duality in integer programming”,SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 27 (1) (1974).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    R.S. Garfinkel and G.L. Nemhauser,Integer programming (Wiley, New York, 1972).Google Scholar
  10. [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. [11]
    A.M. Geoffrion, “Lagrangian relaxation for integer programming”,Mathematical Programming Study 2 (1974) 82–114.Google Scholar
  12. [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. [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. [14]
    M. Held and R.M. Karp, “A dynamic programming approach to sequencing problems”,SIAM Journal 10 (2) (1962).Google Scholar
  15. [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. [16]
    M. Held, P. Wolfe and H.P. Crowder, “Validation of subgradient optimization”,Mathematical Programming 6 (1) (1974) 62–88.Google Scholar
  17. [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. [18]
    E.L. Lawler, “On scheduling problems with deferral costs”,Management Science 9 (4) (1963).Google Scholar
  19. [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. [20]
    G.L. Nemhauser,Introduction to dynamic programming (Wiley, New York, 1966).Google Scholar
  21. [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. [22]
    A.H.G. Rinnooy Kan, B.J. Lageweg and J.K. Lenstra, private communication (September 1975).Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    J. Shwimer, “On then-job, one machine, sequence-independent scheduling problem with tardiness penalties: a branch-bound solution”,Management Science 18 (6) (1972) 301–313.Google Scholar
  24. [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

Copyright information

© The Mathematical Programming Society 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marshall L. Fisher
    • 1
  1. 1.University of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations