Coordination mechanisms with hybrid local policies

Abstract We study coordination mechanisms for scheduling n jobs on m parallel machines where agents representing the jobs interact to generate a schedule. Each agent acts selfishly to minimize the completion time of his/her own job, without considering the overall system performance that is measured by a central objective. The performance deterioration due to the lack of a central coordination, the so-called price of anarchy, is determined by the maximum ratio of the central objective function value of an equilibrium schedule divided by the optimal value. In the first part of the paper, we consider a mixed local policy with some machines using the SPT rule and other machines using the LPT rule. We obtain the exact price of anarchy for the problem of minimizing the makespan and some bounds for the problem of minimizing the total completion time. In the second part of the paper, we consider parallel machine scheduling subject to eligibility constraints. We devise new local policies based on the flexibilities and the processing times of the jobs. We show that the newly devised local policies outperform both the SPT and the LPT rules.

[1]  Sartaj Sahni,et al.  Bounds for List Schedules on Uniform Processors , 1980, SIAM J. Comput..

[2]  Oscar H. Ibarra,et al.  Heuristic Algorithms for Scheduling Independent Tasks on Nonidentical Processors , 1977, JACM.

[3]  Ronald L. Graham,et al.  Bounds on Multiprocessing Timing Anomalies , 1969, SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics.

[4]  Seiki Kyan,et al.  Worst Case Bound of an LRF Schedule for the Mean Weighted Flow-Time Problem , 1986, SIAM J. Comput..

[5]  Oscar H. Ibarra,et al.  Bounds for LPT Schedules on Uniform Processors , 1977, SIAM J. Comput..

[6]  Gregory Dobson,et al.  Scheduling Independent Tasks on Uniform Processors , 1984, SIAM J. Comput..

[7]  Joseph Y.-T. Leung,et al.  Coordination mechanisms for parallel machine scheduling , 2012, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[8]  Nicole Immorlica,et al.  Coordination mechanisms for selfish scheduling , 2005, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[9]  Yossi Azar,et al.  The competitiveness of on-line assignments , 1992, SODA '92.

[10]  Rudolf Müller,et al.  Games and Mechanism Design in Machine Scheduling—An Introduction , 2007 .

[11]  Elias Koutsoupias,et al.  Coordination mechanisms , 2009, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[12]  Annamária Kovács,et al.  New Approximation Bounds for Lpt Scheduling , 2010, Algorithmica.

[13]  Ronald L. Graham,et al.  Bounds for certain multiprocessing anomalies , 1966 .

[14]  Soo Y. Chang,et al.  A posterior Competitiveness for List Scheduling Algorithm on Machines with Eligibility Constraints , 2004, Asia Pac. J. Oper. Res..

[15]  Chung-Lun Li,et al.  Scheduling with processing set restrictions: A survey , 2008 .

[16]  William L. Maxwell,et al.  Theory of scheduling , 1967 .

[17]  Amos Fiat,et al.  On-line routing of virtual circuits with applications to load balancing and machine scheduling , 1997, JACM.

[18]  Kangbok Lee,et al.  Parallel machine scheduling under a grade of service provision , 2004, Comput. Oper. Res..