skip to main content
article

A new average case analysis for completion time scheduling

Published:01 January 2006Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

We present a new average case analysis for the problem of scheduling n jobs on m machines so that the sum of job completion times is minimized. Our goal is to use the concept of competitive ratio---which is a typical worst case notion---also within an average case analysis. We show that the classic SEPT scheduling strategy with Ω(n) worst-case competitive ratio achieves an average of O(1) under several natural distributions, among them the exponential distribution. Our analysis technique allows to also roughly estimate the probability distribution of the competitive ratio. Thus, our result bridges the gap between worst case and average case performance guarantee.

References

  1. Abramowitz, M., and Stegun, I. A., Eds. 1970. Handbook of Mathematical Functions. Dover Publications, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Alon, N., and Spencer, J. H. 2000. The Probabilistic Method, 2nd ed. Wiley-Interscience Series in Discrete Mathematics and Optimization. Wiley-Interscience, New York. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bollobás, B. 2001. Random Graphs, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Borodin, A., and El-Yaniv, R. 1998. Online Computation and Competitive Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Bruno, J., Downey, P., and Frederickson, G. N. 1981. Sequencing tasks with exponential service times to minimize the expected flow time or makespan. J. ACM 28, 100--113. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Bruno, Jr., E. C., and Sethi, R. 1974. Scheduling independent tasks to reduce mean finishing time. Commun. ACM 17, 382--387. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Coffman, Jr., E. G., Garey, M. R., and Johnson, D. S. 1997. Approximation algorithms for bin packing: A survey. In Approximation Algorithms for NP-hard Problems, D. Hochbaum, Ed. 46--93. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Coffmann, Jr., E. and Gilbert, E. N. 1985. Expected relative performance of list scheduling rules. Oper. Res. 33, 548--561.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Coffmann, Jr., E. G., Sao, K., Hofri, M., and Yao, A. C. 1980. A stochastic model of bin-packing. Inf. Cont. 44, 105--115.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Conway, R. W., Maxwell, W. L., and Miller, L. W. 1967. Theory of Scheduling. Addison--Wesley, Reading, MA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Eastman, W. L., Even, S., and Isaacs, I. M. 1964. Bounds for the optimal scheduling of n jobs on m processors. Manage. Sci. 11, 268--279.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Garey, M. R., and Johnson, D. S. 1998. Computers and Intractability. W. H. Freeman and Company.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Graham, R. L., Lawler, E. L., Lenstra, J. K., and Rinnoy Kan, A. H. G. 1979. Optimization and approximation in deterministic sequencing and scheduling: A survey. Ann. Disc. Math. 5, 287--326.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Hall, L. A., Schulz, A. S., Shmoys, D. B., and Wein, J. 1997. Scheduling to minimize average completion time: Off-line and on-line approximation algorithms. Math. Oper. Res. 22, 513--544. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Janson, S., Luczak, T., and Ruciński, A. 2000. Random Graphs. Wiley-Interscience, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Kämpke, T. 1987. On the optimality of static priority policies in stochastic scheduling on parallel machines. J. Appl. Prob. 24, 430--448.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Karmakar, N. 1982. Probabilistic analysis of some bin--packing algorithms. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 107--111.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Kawaguchi, T., and Kyan, S. 1986. Worst case bound of an LRF schedule for the mean weighted flow-time problem. SIAM J. Comput. 15, 4, 1119--1129. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Koutsoupias, E., and Papadimitriou, C. 1994. Beyond competitive analysis. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS '94). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 394--400.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Lageweg, B. J., and Lenstra, J. K. 1977. manuscript. unpublished. (See Garey and Johnson {1998}.)Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. McNaughton, R. 1959. Scheduling with deadlines and loss functions. Manage. Sci. 6, 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Möhring, R. H., Radermacher, F. J., and Weiss, G. 1984. Stochastic scheduling problems I: General strategies. Z. Oper. Res. Ser. A. 28, 193--260.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Möhring, R. H., Schulz, A., and Uetz, M. 1999. Approximation in stochastic scheduling: The power of LP--based priority policies. J. ACM 46, 924--942. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Phillips, C., Stein, C., and Wein, J. 1998. Minimizing average completion time in the presence of release dates. Math. Prog. 82, 199--223.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Pinedo, M. 1995. Scheduling---Theory, Algorithms, and Systems. Prentice--Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Port, S. C. 1994. Theoretical Probability for Applications. Wiley, New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Rothkopf, M. H. 1966. Scheduling with random service times. Manage. Sci. 12, 703--713.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Sahni, S. K. 1976. Algorithms for scheduling independent tasks. J. ACM 23, 116--127. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Schulz, A. S. 1996. Scheduling to minimize total weighted completion time: Performance guarantees of LP-based heuristics and lower bounds. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1084. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 301--315. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Skutella, M. 2001. Convex quadratic and semidefinite programming relaxations in scheduling. J. ACM 48, 206--242. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Skutella, M., and Woeginger, G. J. 2000. A PTAS for minimizing the total weighted completion time on identical parallel machines. Math. Oper. Res. 25, 63--75. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Smith, W. E. 1956. Various optimizers for single-stage production. Naval Res. Log. Quatl. 3, 59--66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Souza, A., and Steger, A. 2006. The expected competitive ratio for weighted completion time scheduling. Theory Comput. Syst., 39, 1 (Feb.), 121--136.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Weber, R. R., Varaiya, P., and Walrand, J. 1986. Scheduling jobs with stochastically ordered processing times on parallel machines to minimize expected flowtime. J. Appl. Prob. 23, 841--847.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Weiss, G., and Pinedo, M. 1980. Scheduling tasks with exponential service times on non-identical processors to minimize various cost functions. J. Appl. Prob. 17, 187--202.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. A new average case analysis for completion time scheduling

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image Journal of the ACM
      Journal of the ACM  Volume 53, Issue 1
      January 2006
      206 pages
      ISSN:0004-5411
      EISSN:1557-735X
      DOI:10.1145/1120582
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Copyright © 2006 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 1 January 2006
      Published in jacm Volume 53, Issue 1

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader