Mathematical Programming

, Volume 62, Issue 1–3, pp 461–474 | Cite as

An approximation algorithm for the generalized assignment problem

  • David B. Shmoys
  • Éva Tardos
Article

Abstract

The generalized assignment problem can be viewed as the following problem of scheduling parallel machines with costs. Each job is to be processed by exactly one machine; processing jobj on machinei requires timepij and incurs a cost ofcij; each machinei is available forTi time units, and the objective is to minimize the total cost incurred. Our main result is as follows. There is a polynomial-time algorithm that, given a valueC, either proves that no feasible schedule of costC exists, or else finds a schedule of cost at mostC where each machinei is used for at most 2Ti time units.

We also extend this result to a variant of the problem where, instead of a fixed processing timepij, there is a range of possible processing times for each machine—job pair, and the cost linearly increases as the processing time decreases. We show that these results imply a polynomial-time 2-approximation algorithm to minimize a weighted sum of the cost and the makespan, i.e., the maximum job completion time. We also consider the objective of minimizing the mean job completion time. We show that there is a polynomial-time algorithm that, given valuesM andT, either proves that no schedule of mean job completion timeM and makespanT exists, or else finds a schedule of mean job completion time at mostM and makespan at most 2T.

Key words

Approximation algorithms generalized assignment problem scheduling unrelated parallel machines 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    J.L. Bruno, E.G. Coffmann Jr. and R. Sethi, “Scheduling independent tasks to reduce mean finishing time,”Communications of the ACM 17 (1974) 382–387.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    W.A. Horn, “Minimizing average flow time with parallel machines,”Operations Research 21 (1973) 846–847.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    E.L. Lawler, J.K. Lenstra, A.H.G. Rinnooy Kan and D.B. Shmoys, “Sequencing and scheduling: algorithms and complexity,” in: A.H.G. Rinnooy Kan and P. Zipkin, eds.,Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, Vol. 4: Logistics of Production and Inventory (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1993) pp. 445–522.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    J.K. Lenstra, D.B. Shmoys and É. Tardos, “Approximation algorithms for scheduling unrelated parallel machines,”Mathematical Programming 46 (1990) 259–271.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    J.-H. Lin and J.S. Vitter, “ε-approximations with minimum packing constraint violation,” in:Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (1992) pp. 771–782.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    L. Lovász and M. Plummer,Matching Theory (Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, and North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1986).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    S.A. Plotkin, D.B. Shmoys and É. Tardos, “Fast approximation algorithms for fractional packing and covering problems” Technical Report 999, School of Operations Research and Industrial Engineering, Cornell University (Ithaca, NY, 1992).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    M.A. Trick, “Scheduling multiple variable-speed machines,” in:Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization (1990) pp. 485–494.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    M.A. Trick, “Scheduling multiple variable-speed machines,” unpublished manuscript (1991).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Mathematical Programming Society, Inc. 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • David B. Shmoys
    • 1
  • Éva Tardos
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Operations Research and EngineeringCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations