Scheduling to minimize total weighted completion time: Performance guarantees of LP-based heuristics and lower bounds

  • Andreas S. Schulz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1084)

Abstract

There has been recent success in using polyhedral formulations of scheduling problems not only to obtain good lower bounds in practice but also to develop provably good approximation algorithms. Most of these formulations rely on binary decision variables that are a kind of assignment variables. We present quite simple polynomialtime approximation algorithms that are based on linear programming formulations with completion time variables and give the best known performance guarantees for minimizing the total weighted completion time in several scheduling environments. This amplifies the importance of (appropriate) polyhedral formulations in the design of approximation algorithms with good worst-case performance guarantees.

In particular, for the problem of minimizing the total weighted completion time on a single machine subject to precedence constraints we present a polynomial-time approximation algorithm with performance ratio better than 2. This outperforms a (4 + ε)-approximation algorithm very recently proposed by Hall, Shmoys, and Wein that is based on time-indexed formulations. A slightly extended formulation leads to a performance guarantee of 3 for the same problem but with release dates. This improves a factor of 5.83 for the same problem and even the 4-approximation algorithm for the problem with release dates but without precedence constraints, both also due to Hall, Shmoys, and Wein.

By introducing new linear inequalities, we also show how to extend our technique to parallel machine problems. This leads, for instance, to the best known approximation algorithm for scheduling jobs with release dates on identical parallel machines. Finally, for the flow shop problem to minimize the total weighted completion time with both precedence constraints and release dates we present the first approximation algorithm that achieves a worst-case performance guarantee that is linear in the number of machines. We even extend this to multiprocessor flow shop scheduling.

The proofs of these results also imply guarantees for the lower bounds obtained by solving the proposed linear programming relaxations. This emphasizes the strength of linear programming formulations using completion time variables.

References

  1. [BCS74]
    J. L. Bruno, E. G. Coffman Jr., and R. Sethi. Scheduling independent tasks to reduce mean finishing time. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 17:382–387, 1974.Google Scholar
  2. [CPS+96]
    S. Chakrabarti, C. A. Phillips, A. S. Schulz, D. B. Shmoys, C. Stein, and J. Wein. Improved scheduling algorithms for minsum criteria, 1996. To appear in Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Proceedings of the 23rd ICALP Conference.Google Scholar
  3. [DW90]
    M. E. Dyer and L. A. Wolsey. Formulating the single machine sequencing problem with release dates as a mixed integer program. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 26:255–270, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [GJS76]
    M. R. Garey, D. S. Johnson, and R. Sethi. The complexity of flowshop and jobshop scheduling. Mathematics of Operations Research, 1:117–129, 1976.Google Scholar
  5. [GLLRK79]
    R. L. Graham, E. L. Lawler, J. K. Lenstra, and A. H. G. Rinnooy Kan. Optimization and approximation in deterministic sequencing and scheduling: A survey. Annals of Discrete Mathematics, 5:287–326, 1979.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. [GLS88]
    M. Grötschel, L. Lovász, and A. Schrijver. Geometric Algorithms and Combinatorial Optimization, volume 2 of Algorithms and Combinatorics. Springer, Berlin, 1988.Google Scholar
  7. [Goe96]
    M. X. Goemans. A supermodular relaxation for scheduling with release dates. This volume, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. [GS78]
    T. Gonzalez and S. Sahni. Flowshop and jobshop schedules: Complexity and approximation. Operations Research, 26:36–52, 1978.Google Scholar
  9. [HHLV]
    J. A. Hoogeveen, C. Hurkens, J. K. Lenstra, and A. Vandevelde. Lower bounds for the multiprocessor flow shop. In preparation.Google Scholar
  10. [HS88]
    D. S. Hochbaum and D. B. Shmoys. A polynomial approximation scheme for scheduling on uniform processors: Using the dual approximation approach. SIAM Journal on Computing, 17:539–551, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [HSSW96]
    L. A. Hall, A. S. Schulz, D. B. Shmoys, and J. Wein. Scheduling to minimize average completion time: Off-line and on-line algorithms, 1996. In preparation.Google Scholar
  12. [HSW95]
    L. A. Hall, D. B. Shmoys, and J. Wein. Personal communication, September 1995.Google Scholar
  13. [HSW96]
    L. A. Hall, D. B. Shmoys, and J. Wein. Scheduling to minimize average completion time: Off-line and on-line algorithms. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pages 142–151, January 1996.Google Scholar
  14. [KK86]
    T. Kawaguchi and S. Kyan. Worst case bound of an LRF schedule for the mean weighted flow-time problem. SIAM Journal on Computing, 15:1119–1129, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [Law78]
    E. L. Lawler. Sequencing jobs to minimize total weighted completion time subject to precedence constraints. Annals of Discrete Mathematics, 2:75–90, 1978.Google Scholar
  16. [LLRKS93]
    E. L. Lawler, J. K. Lenstra, A. H. G. Rinnooy Kan, and D. B. Shmoys. Sequencing and scheduling: Algorithms and complexity. In S. C. Graves, A. H. G. Rinnooy Kan, and P. H. Zipkin, editors, Logistics of Production and Inventory, volume 4 of Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, pages 445–522. North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. [LRKB77]
    J. K. Lenstra, A. H. G. Rinnooy Kan, and P. Brucker. Complexity of machine scheduling problems. Annals of Discrete Mathematics, 1:343–362, 1977.Google Scholar
  18. [LST90]
    J. K. Lenstra, D. B. Shmoys, and É. Tardos. Approximation algorithms for scheduling unrelated parallel machines. Mathematical Programming, 46:259–271, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [MSS96]
    R. H. Möhring, M. W. Schäffter, and A. S. Schulz. Scheduling with communication delays: Minimizing the average weighted completion time. Preprint, Department of Mathematics, Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 1996.Google Scholar
  20. [PSW95]
    C. Phillips, C. Stein, and J. Wein. Scheduling jobs that arrive over time. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Algorithms and Data Structures, number 955 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 86–97. Springer, Berlin, 1995.Google Scholar
  21. [QS94]
    M. Queyranne and A. S. Schulz. Polyhedral approaches to machine scheduling. Preprint 408/1994, Department of Mathematics, Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 1994.Google Scholar
  22. [QS95]
    M. Queyranne and A. S. Schulz. Scheduling unit jobs with compatible release dates on parallel machines with nonstationary speeds. In E. Balas and J. Clausen, editors, Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization, number 920 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 307–320. Springer, Berlin, 1995. Proceedings of the 4th International IPCO Conference.Google Scholar
  23. [Que93]
    M. Queyranne. Structure of a simple scheduling polyhedron. Mathematical Programming, 58:263–285, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [Que95]
    M. Queyranne. Personal communication, September 1995.Google Scholar
  25. [QW91]
    M. Queyranne and Y. Wang. A cutting plane procedure for precedence-constrained single machine scheduling. Working paper. Faculty of Commerce, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, 1991.Google Scholar
  26. [RC92]
    C. Rajendran and D. Chaudhuri. A multi-stage parallel-processor flowshop problem with minimum flowtime. European Journal of Operational Research, 57:111–122, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [Sch95a]
    A. S. Schulz. Polytopes and Scheduling. PhD thesis, Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 1995.Google Scholar
  28. [Sch95b]
    A. S. Schulz. Scheduling to minimize total weighted completion time: Performance guarantees of LP-based heuristics and lower bounds. Preprint 474/1995, Department of Mathematics, Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 1995.Google Scholar
  29. [Smi56]
    W. E. Smith. Various optimizers for single-stage production. Naval Research and Logistics Quarterly, 3:59–66, 1956.Google Scholar
  30. [ST93]
    D. B. Shmoys and E. Tardos. An approximation algorithm for the generalized assignment problem. Mathematical Programming, 62:461–474, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas S. Schulz
    • 1
  1. 1.Fachbereich Mathematik (MA 6-1)Technische Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations