Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
184 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

A k-swap Local Search for Makespan Scheduling (2401.05956v2)

Published 11 Jan 2024 in cs.DS

Abstract: Local search is a widely used technique for tackling challenging optimization problems, offering significant advantages in terms of computational efficiency and exhibiting strong empirical behavior across a wide range of problem domains. In this paper, we address the problem of scheduling a set of jobs on identical parallel machines with the objective of makespan minimization. For this problem, we consider a local search neighborhood, called $k$-swap, which is a generalized version of the widely-used swap and jump neighborhoods. The $k$-swap neighborhood is obtained by swapping at most $k$ jobs between two machines. First, we propose an algorithm for finding an improving neighbor in the $k$-swap neighborhood which is faster than the naive approach, and prove an almost matching lower bound on any such an algorithm. Then, we analyze the number of local search steps required to converge to a local optimum with respect to the $k$-swap neighborhood. For $k \geq 3$, we provide an exponential lower bound regardless of the number of machines, and for $k = 2$ (similar to the swap neighborhood), we provide a polynomial upper bound for the case of having two machines. Finally, we conduct computational experiments on various families of instances.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (31)
  1. Local search in combinatorial optimization. Princeton University Press, 2003.
  2. A. Abboud and K. Lewi. Exact weight subgraphs and the k-sum conjecture. In International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP), pages 1–12. Springer, 2013.
  3. Multi-exchange neighborhood structures for the capacitated minimum spanning tree problem. Mathematical Programming, 91(1):71–97, 2001.
  4. Color-coding. Journal of the ACM, 42(4):844–856, 1995.
  5. Fine-grained complexity analysis of two classic tsp variants. ACM Transactions on Algorithms, 17(1):1–29, 2020.
  6. Load balancing: The long road from theory to practice. In 2022 Proceedings of the Symposium on Algorithm Engineering and Experiments (ALENEX), pages 104–116. SIAM, 2022.
  7. Improving local search heuristics for some scheduling problems—i. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 65(1-3):97–122, 1996.
  8. Improving local search heuristics for some scheduling problems. part ii. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 72(1-2):47–69, 1997.
  9. Exponential size neighborhoods for makespan minimization scheduling. Naval Research Logistics, 58(8):795–803, 2011.
  10. G.A. Croes. A method for solving traveling-salesman problems. Operations research, 6(6):791–812, 1958.
  11. Multiprocessor scheduling is pls-complete. In 2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pages 1–10. IEEE, 2009.
  12. G. Finn and E. Horowitz. A linear time approximation algorithm for multiprocessor scheduling. BIT Numerical Mathematics, 19(3):312–320, 1979.
  13. M.M. Flood. The traveling-salesman problem. Operations research, 4(1):61–75, 1956.
  14. A multi-exchange neighborhood for minimum makespan parallel machine scheduling problems. Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, 8(2):195–220, 2004.
  15. R.L. Graham. Bounds for certain multiprocessing anomalies. Bell system technical journal, 45(9):1563–1581, 1966.
  16. R.L. Graham. Bounds on multiprocessing timing anomalies. SIAM journal on Applied Mathematics, 17(2):416–429, 1969.
  17. Optimization and approximation in deterministic sequencing and scheduling: a survey. In Annals of discrete mathematics, volume 5, pages 287–326. Elsevier, 1979.
  18. Using dual approximation algorithms for scheduling problems theoretical and practical results. Journal of the ACM, 34(1):144–162, 1987.
  19. E. Horowitz and S. Sahni. Computing partitions with applications to the knapsack problem. Journal of the ACM, 21(2):277–292, 1974.
  20. C.A. Hurkens and T. Vredeveld. Local search for multiprocessor scheduling: how many moves does it take to a local optimum? Operations Research Letters, 31(2):137–141, 2003.
  21. Computers and intractability: A guide to the theory of NP-completeness. WH Freeman, 1979.
  22. Approximation algorithms for scheduling unrelated parallel machines. Mathematical programming, 46:259–271, 1990.
  23. Y.L. Luke. Special Functions and Their Approximations: v. 2. Academic press, 1969.
  24. D. Marx. Parameterized complexity and approximation algorithms. The Computer Journal, 51(1):60–78, 2008.
  25. Theoretical aspects of local search, volume 13. Springer, 2007.
  26. R. Motwani and P. Raghavan. Randomized algorithms. Cambridge university press, 1995.
  27. Splitters and near-optimal derandomization. In Proceedings of IEEE 36th Annual Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 182–191. IEEE, 1995.
  28. Implementation of the randomized and naive k𝑘kitalic_k-swap algorithms. https://github.com/a-safari/k-swap, 2024.
  29. S.K. Sahni. Algorithms for scheduling independent tasks. Journal of the ACM, 23(1):116–127, 1976.
  30. P. Schuurman and T. Vredeveld. Performance guarantees of local search for multiprocessor scheduling. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 19(1):52–63, 2007.
  31. G.J. Woeginger. When does a dynamic programming formulation guarantee the existence of a fully polynomial time approximation scheme (fptas)? INFORMS Journal on Computing, 12(1):57–74, 2000.

Summary

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

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com