Scheduling to Minimize Average Completion Time Revisited: Deterministic On-Line Algorithms

  • Nicole Megow
  • Andreas S. Schulz
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2909)

Abstract

We consider the scheduling problem of minimizing the average weighted completion time on identical parallel machines when jobs are arriving over time. For both the preemptive and the nonpreemptive setting, we show that straightforward extensions of Smith’s ratio rule yield smaller competitive ratios compared to the previously best-known deterministic on-line algorithms, which are (4+ε)-competitive in either case. Our preemptive algorithm is 2-competitive, which actually meets the competitive ratio of the currently best randomized on-line algorithm for this scenario. Our nonpreemptive algorithm has a competitive ratio of 3.28. Both results are characterized by a surprisingly simple analysis; moreover, the preemptive algorithm also works in the less clairvoyant environment in which only the ratio of weight to processing time of a job becomes known at its release date, but neither its actual weight nor its processing time. In the corresponding nonpreemptive situation, every on-line algorithm has an unbounded competitive ratio.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Afrati, F.N., Bampis, E., Chekuri, C., Karger, D.R., Kenyon, C., Khanna, S., Milis, I., Queyranne, M., Skutella, M., Stein, C., Sviridenko, M.: Approximation schemes for minimizing average weighted completion time with release dates. In: Proceedings of the 40th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), New York, NY, pp. 32–43 (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson, E.J., Potts, C.N.: On-line scheduling of a single machine to minimize total weighted completion time. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual ACMSIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), San Francisco, CA, pp. 548–557 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chekuri, C., Motwani, R., Natarajan, B., Stein, C.: Approximation techniques for average completion time scheduling. SIAM Journal on Computing 31, 146–166 (2001)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eastman, W.L., Even, S., Isaacs, I.M.: Bounds for the optimal scheduling of n jobs on m processors. Management Science 11, 268–279 (1964)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goemans, M.X., Queyranne, M., Schulz, A.S., Skutella, M., Wang, Y.: Single machine scheduling with release dates. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics 15, 165–192 (2002)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Graham, R.L., Lawler, E.L., Lenstra, J.K., Rinnooy Kan, A.H.G.: Optimization and approximation in deterministic sequencing and scheduling: A survey. Annals of Discrete Mathematics 5, 287–326 (1979)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hall, L.A., Schulz, A.S., Shmoys, D.B., Wein, J.: Scheduling to minimize average completion time: Off-line and on-line approximation algorithms. Mathematics of Operations Research 22, 513–544 (1997)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoogeveen, J.A., Vestjens, A.P.A.: Optimal on-line algorithms for single-machine scheduling. In: Cunningham, W.H., Queyranne, M., McCormick, S.T. (eds.) IPCO 1996. LNCS, vol. 1084, pp. 404–414. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Labetoulle, J., Lawler, E.L., Lenstra, J.K., Rinnooy Kan, A.H.G.: Preemptive scheduling of uniform machines subject to release dates. In: Pulleyblank, W.R. (ed.) Progress in Combinatorial Optimization, pp. 245–261. Academic Press, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lenstra, J.K., Rinnooy Kan, A.H.G., Brucker, P.: Complexity of machine scheduling problems. Annals of Discrete Mathematics 1, 343–362 (1977)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lu, X., Sitters, R.A., Stougie, L.: A class of on-line scheduling algorithms to minimize total completion time. Operations Research Letters 31, 232–236 (2003)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Phillips, C.A., Stein, C., Wein, J.: Minimizing average completion time in the presence of release dates. Mathematical Programming 82, 199–223 (1998)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schrage, L.: A proof of the optimality of the shortest remaining processing time discipline. Operations Research 16, 687–690 (1968)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schulz, A.S., Skutella, M.: The power of α-points in preemptive single machine scheduling. Journal of Scheduling 5, 121–133 (2002)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schulz, A.S., Skutella, M.: Scheduling unrelated machines by randomized rounding. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics 15, 450–469 (2002)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sleator, D.D., Tarjan, R.E.: Amortized efficiency of list update and paging rules. Communications of the ACM 28, 202–208 (1985)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith, W.E.: Various optimizers for single-stage production. Naval Research and Logistics Quarterly 3, 59–66 (1956)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vestjens, A.P.A.: On-line Machine Scheduling. PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicole Megow
    • 1
  • Andreas S. Schulz
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut für MathematikTechnische Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Sloan School of ManagementMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations