Improved scheduling algorithms for minsum criteria

Extended abstract
  • Soumen Chakrabarti
  • Cynthia A. Phillips
  • Andreas S. Schulz
  • David B. Shmoys
  • Cliff Stein
  • Joel Wein
Session 16: Algorithms II
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1099)

Abstract

We consider the problem of finding near-optimal solutions for a variety of NP-hard scheduling problems for which the objective is to minimize the total weighted completion time. Recent work has led to the development of several techniques that yield constant worst-case bounds in a number of settings. We continue this line of research by providing improved performance guarantees for several of the most basic scheduling models, and by giving the first constant performance guarantee for a number of more realistically constrained scheduling problems. For example, we give an improved performance guarantee for minimizing the total weighted completion time subject to release dates on a single machine, and subject to release dates and/or precedence constraints on identical parallel machines. We also give improved bounds on the power of preemption in scheduling jobs with release dates on parallel machines.

We give improved on-line algorithms for many more realistic scheduling models, including environments with parallelizable jobs, jobs contending for shared resources, tree precedence-constrained jobs, as well as shop scheduling models. In several of these cases, we give the first constant performance guarantee achieved on-line. Finally, one of the consequences of our work is the surprising structural property that there are schedules that simultaneously approximate the optimal makespan and the optimal weighted completion time to within small constants. Not only do such schedules exist, but we can find approximations to them with an on-line algorithm.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    D. Applegate and W. Cook. A computational study of the job-shop scheduling problem. ORSA Journal of Computing, 3:149–156, 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    I. Bárány and T. Fiala. Többgépes ütemezési problémák közel optimális megoldása. Szigma-Mat.-Kozgazdasági Folyóirat, 15:177–191, 1982.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Blum, P. Chalasani, D. Coppersmith, B. Pulleyblank, P. Raghavan, and M. Sudan. The minimum latency problem. In STOC 26, pages 163–172, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.L. Bruno, E.G. Coffman, and R. Sethi. Scheduling independent tasks to reduce mean finishing time. Communications of the ACM, 17:382–387, 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Chakrabarti and S. Muthukrishnan. Resource scheduling for parallel database and scientific applications. To appear in SPAA 96, June 1996.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Feldmann, M. Kao, J. Sgall, and S. Teng. Optimal online scheduline of parallel jobs with dependencies. In STOC 25, pages 642–653, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M.R. Garey and R.L. Graham. Bounds for multiprocessor scheduling with resource constraints. SIAM Journal on Computing, 4:187–200, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Goemans and J. Kleinberg. An improved approximation ratio for the minimum latency problem. In SODA 7, pages 152–157, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. Gonzalez and S. Sahni. Open shop scheduling to minimize finish time. Journal of the ACM, 23:665–679, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    L.A. Hall, A.S. Schulz, D.B. Shmoys, and J. Wein. Scheduling to minimize average completion time: Off-line and on-line algorithms. Joint journal version of [11] and [18]; in preparation.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    L.A. Hall, D.B. Shmoys, and J. Wein. Scheduling to minimize average completion time: Off-line and on-line algorithms. In SODA 7, pages 142–151, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    W. Horn. Minimizing average flow time with parallel machines. Operations Research, 21:846–847, 1973.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C.A.J. Hurkens and M.J. Coster. On the makespan of a schedule minimizing total completion time for unrelated parallel machines. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D.S. Johnson and K.A. Niemi. On knapsacks, partitions, and a new dynamic programming technique for trees. Mathematics of Operations Research, 8:1–14, 1983.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    W. Ludwig and P. Tiwari. Scheduling malleable and nonmalleable parallel tasks. in SODA 5, pages 167–176, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. Phillips, C. Stein, and J. Wein. Scheduling jobs that arrive over time. In WADS 4, pages 86–97, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Queyranne and A.S. Schulz. Polyhedral approaches to machine scheduling. Preprint 408/1994, Dept. of Mathematics, Technical University of Berlin, 1994.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A.S. Schulz. Scheduling to minimize total weighted completion time: Performance guarantees of LP-based heuristics and lower bounds. Preprint 474/1995, Dept. of Mathematics, Technical University of Berlin. To appear in IPCO V, June 1996.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    D.B. Shmoys, C. Stein, and J. Wein. Improved approximation algorithms for shop scheduling problems. SIAM Journal on Computing, 23:617–632, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    D.B. Shmoys and É. Tardos. Scheduling parallel machines with costs. In SODA 4, pages 448–455, 1993.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    W.E. Smith. Various optimizers for single-stage production. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 3:59–66, 1956.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Turek, U. Schwiegelshohn, J. Wolf, and P. Yu. Scheduling parallel tasks to minimize average response time. In SODA 5, pages 112–121, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Soumen Chakrabarti
    • 1
  • Cynthia A. Phillips
    • 2
  • Andreas S. Schulz
    • 3
  • David B. Shmoys
    • 4
  • Cliff Stein
    • 5
  • Joel Wein
    • 6
  1. 1.Computer Science DivisionU. C. Berkeley
  2. 2.Sandia National LabsAlbuquerque
  3. 3.Department of MathematicsTechnical University of BerlinBerlinGermany
  4. 4.School of Operations Research and Industrial EngineeringCornell UniversityIthaca
  5. 5.Department of Computer Science, Sudikoff LaboratoryDartmouth CollegeHanover
  6. 6.Department of Computer SciencePolytechnic UniversityBrooklyn

Personalised recommendations