Journal of Combinatorial Optimization

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 567–579 | Cite as

A coordination mechanism for a scheduling game with parallel-batching machines

Article
First Online:

Abstract

In this paper we consider the scheduling problem with parallel-batching machines from a game theoretic perspective. There are m parallel-batching machines each of which can handle up to b jobs simultaneously as a batch. The processing time of a batch is the time required for processing the longest job in the batch, and all the jobs in a batch start and complete at the same time. There are n jobs. Each job is owned by a rational and selfish agent and its individual cost is the completion time of its job. The social cost is the largest completion time over all jobs, the makespan. We design a coordination mechanism for the scheduling game problem. We discuss the existence of pure Nash Equilibria and offer upper and lower bounds on the price of anarchy of the coordination mechanism. We show that the mechanism has a price of anarchy no more than \(2-\frac{2}{3b}-\frac{1}{3\max \{m,b\}}\).

Keywords

Game Scheduling Coordination mechanism Nash Equilibrium Price of anarchy 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Numbers 11201439 and 11271341. This work was also supported in part by the Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation, China, under Grant Number ZR2012AQ12 and by the Doctoral Fund of Ministry of Education of China (20120132120001).

References

  1. Aspnes J, Azar Y, Fiat A, Plotkin SA, Waarts O (1997) On-line routing of virtual circuits with applications to load balancing and machine scheduling. J ACM 44(3):486–504MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Awerbuch B, Azar Y, Richter Y, Tsur D (2006) Tradeoffs in worst-case equilibria. Theor Comput Sci 361(2–3):200–209MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Azar Y, Jain K, Mirrokni VS (2008) (Almost) optimal coordination mechanisms for unrelated machine scheduling. In: Proceedings of the 19th annual ACM-SIAM symposium on discrete algorithms, SODA, pp 323-332Google Scholar
  4. Azar Y, Naor J, Rom R (1995) The competitiveness of on-line assignments. J Algorithms 18(2):221–237MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Cho Y, Sahni S (1980) Bounds for list schedules on uniform processors. SIAM J Comput 9:91–103MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Christodoulou G, Koutsoupias E, Nanavati A (2009) Coordination mechanisms. Theor Comput Sci 410(36):3327–3336MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Czumaj A, Vocking B (2007) Tight bounds for worst-case equilibria. ACM Trans Algorithms (TALG) 3(1):1–17MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Deng X, Poon CK, Zhang Y (2003) Approximation algorithms in batching processing. J Comb Optim 7:247–257MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Dobson G (1984) Scheduling independent tasks on uniform processors. SIAM J Comput 13:716–721MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Durr C, Thang NK (2011) Non-clairvoyant scheduling games. Theory Comput Syst 49(1):3–23MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Finn G, Horowitz E (1979) A linear time approximation algorithm for multiprocessor scheduling. BIT 19:312–320MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Friesen DK (1987) Tighter bounds for LPT scheduling on uniform processors. SIAM J Comput 16:554–560MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Gairing M, Lucking T, Mavronicolas M, Monien B (2004) Computing nash equilibria for scheduling on restricted parallel links. In: STOC, pp 613-622Google Scholar
  14. Graham RL (1969) Bounds on multiprocessing timing anomalies. SIAM J Appl Math 45:416–429MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Graham RL, Lawler EL, Lenstra JK, Rinnooy Kan AHG (1979) Optimization and approximation in deterministic sequencing andscheduling: a survey. Ann Discrete Math 5(2):287–326MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Ibarra OH, Kim CE (1997) Huristic algorithms for scheduling independent tasks on nonidentical processors. J ACM 24:280–289CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Immorlica N, Li L, Mirrokni VS, Schulz A (2009) Coordination mechanisms for selfish scheduling. Theor Comput Sci 410:1589–1598MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Koutsoupias E, Papadimitriou C (2009) Worst-case equilibria. Comput Sci Rev 3(2):65–69CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. Lageweg BJ, Lawler EL, Lenstra JK, Rinnooy Kan AHG (1981) Computer aided complexity classification of deterministic scheduling problems. Research report BW138/81, Mathematisch Centrum, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  20. Lee CY, Uzsoy R, Martin Vega LA (1992) Efficient algorithms for scheduling semiconductor burn-in operations. Oper Res 40:764–775MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Lee CY, Uzsoy R (1999) Minimizing makespan on a single batch processing machine with dynamic job arrivals. Int J Prod Res 37:219–236CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Ng CT, Cheng TCE, Yuan JJ (2003) The single machine batching problem with family setup times to minimize maximum lateness is strongly \(NP\)-hard. J Sched 6:483–490MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Potts CN, Kovalyov MY (2000) Scheduling with batching: a review. Eur J Oper Res 120:228–249MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Schuurman P, Vredeveld T (2007) Performance guarantees of local search for multiprocessor scheduling. INFORMS J Comput 19:52–63MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Uzsoy R (1994) A single batch processing machine with non-identical job sizes. Int J Prod Res 32:1615–1635CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhang G, Cai X, Wong CK (2001) On-line algorithms for minimizing makespan on batch processing machines. Nav Res Logist 48:241–258MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Mathematical ScienceOcean University of ChinaQingdaoPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations