Advertisement

Journal of Scheduling

, Volume 9, Issue 6, pp 545–557 | Cite as

Scheduling search procedures: The wheel of fortune

  • Peter DamaschkeEmail author
Open Access
Papers

Abstract

Suppose that a player can make progress on n jobs, and her goal is to complete a target job among them, as soon as possible. Unfortunately she does not know what the target job is, perhaps not even if the target exists. This is a typical situation in searching and testing. Depending on the player’s prior knowledge and optimization goals, this gives rise to various optimization problems in the framework of game theory and, sometimes, competitive analysis. Continuing earlier work on this topic, we study another two versions. In the first game, the player knows only the job lengths and wants to minimize the completion time. A simple strategy that we call wheel-of-fortune (WOF) is optimal for this objective. A slight and natural modification, however makes this game considerably more difficult: If the player can be sure that the target is present, WOF fails. However, we can still construct in polynomial time an optimal strategy based on WOF. We also prove that the tight absolute bounds on the expected search time. In the final part, we study two competitive-ratio minimization problems where either the job lengths or the target probabilities are known. We show their equivalence, describe the structure of optimal strategies, and give a heuristic solution.

Keywords

Searching Game theory Nonclairvoyant scheduling 

References

  1. Baeza-Yates, R. A., J. C. Culberson, and G. J. E. Rawlins, “Searching in the plane,” Information and Computation, 106, 234–252 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bansal, N., K. Dhamdhere, J. Könemann, and A. Sinha, “Non-clairvoyant scheduling for minimizing mean slowdown,” 20th Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, STACS’2003, LNCS 2607, pp. 260–270.Google Scholar
  3. Benkoski, S., M. G. Monticino, and J. R. Weisinger, “A survey of the search theory literature,” Naval Research Logistics, 38, 469–494 (1991).Google Scholar
  4. Borodin, A. and R. El-Yaniv, Online Computation and Competitive Analysis. Cambridge University Press (1998).Google Scholar
  5. Charnes A. and W.W. Cooper, “The theory of search: Optimal distribution of search effort,” Management Science 5, 44–50 (1958).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chrobak, M., L. Epstein, J. Noga, J. Sgall, R. van Stee, T. Tichy, and N. Vakhania, “Preemptive scheduling in overloaded systems,” 29th Int. Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, ICALP’2002, LNCS 2380, pp. 800–811.Google Scholar
  7. Cooper, D.C., J.R. Frost, and R. Quincy Robe, “Compatibility of Land SAR procedures with search theory,” prepared for U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, 2003, available on http://www.uscg.mil/hq/G-O/G-OPR/nsarc/nsarc.htm
  8. Damaschke, P., “Scheduling search procedures,” Journal of Scheduling, 7, 349–364 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frost. J. R., “Principles of search theory,” part I–IV, in: Response, 17 (1999).Google Scholar
  10. Gal, S., “On the optimality of a simple strategy for searching graphs,” Int. Journal of Game Theory, 29, 533–542 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kao, M. Y. and M. L. Littman, “Algorithms for informed cows,” AAAI-97 Workshop on On-Line Search, 1997.Google Scholar
  12. Kao, M. Y., J. H. Reif, and S. R. Tate, “Searching an unknown environment: an optimal randomized algorithm for the cow-path problem,” Information and Computation, 131, 63–79 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kao, M. Y., Y. Ma, M. Sipser, and Y. Yin, “Optimal constructions of hybrid algorithms,” 5th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, SODA 1994, pp. 372–381.Google Scholar
  14. Koopman, B. O., “Search and screening,” OEG Report 56, Columbia Univ. Division of War Research, 1946.Google Scholar
  15. Koutsoupias, E. and C. Papadimitriou, “Beyond competitive analysis,” SIAM Journal on Computing, 30, 300–317 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lopez-Ortiz, A. and S. Schuierer, “The ultimate strategy to search on m rays?,” 4th Conf. on Computing and Combinatorics COCOON 1998, LNCS 1449, pp. 75–84.Google Scholar
  17. Lopez-Ortiz, A. and S. Schuierer, “Online parallel heuristics and robot searching under the competitive framework,” 8th Scandinavian Workshop on Algorithm Theory, SWAT 2002, LNCS 2368, pp. 260–269.Google Scholar
  18. Mastrolilli, M., “Scheduling to minimize max flow time: Offline and online algorithms,” 14th Symposium on Fundamentals of Computation Theory, FCT 2003, LNCS 2751, pp. 49–60.Google Scholar
  19. Motwani, R., S. Phillips, and E. Torng, “Nonclairvoyant scheduling,” Theoretical Computer Science, 130, 17–47 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Myerson, R. B., Game Theory: Analysis of Conflict. Harvard University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  21. Stengel, B. V. and R. Werchner, “Complexity of searching an immobile hider in a graph,” Discrete Applied Mathematics, 78, 235–249 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer Science and EngineeringChalmers UniversityGöteborgSweden

Personalised recommendations