Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 168 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 48 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 28 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 25 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 122 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 188 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 464 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 36 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Traveling Repairperson, Unrelated Machines, and Other Stories About Average Completion Times (2102.06904v2)

Published 13 Feb 2021 in cs.DS

Abstract: We present a unified framework for minimizing average completion time for many seemingly disparate online scheduling problems, such as the traveling repairperson problems (TRP), dial-a-ride problems (DARP), and scheduling on unrelated machines. We construct a simple algorithm that handles all these scheduling problems, by computing and later executing auxiliary schedules, each optimizing a certain function on already seen prefix of the input. The optimized function resembles a prize-collecting variant of the original scheduling problem. By a careful analysis of the interplay between these auxiliary schedules, and later employing the resulting inequalities in a factor-revealing linear program, we obtain improved bounds on the competitive ratio for all these scheduling problems. In particular, our techniques yield a $4$-competitive deterministic algorithm for all previously studied variants of online TRP and DARP, and a $3$-competitive one for the scheduling on unrelated machines (also with precedence constraints). This improves over currently best ratios for these problems that are $5.14$ and $4$, respectively. We also show how to use randomization to further reduce the competitive ratios to $1+2/\ln 3 < 2.821$ and $1+1/\ln 2 < 2.443$, respectively. The randomized bounds also substantially improve the current state of the art. Our upper bound for DARP contradicts the lower bound of 3 given by Fink et al. (Inf. Process. Lett. 2009); we pinpoint a flaw in their proof.

Citations (16)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Lightbulb Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.