MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611857909 · doi:10.1137/16m1086819

A Primal-Dual Approximation Algorithm for Min-Sum Single-Machine Scheduling Problems

2017· article· en· W2611857909 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Maurice Cheung, Julián Mestre, David B. Shmoys, José Verschae

Bibliographic record

VenueSIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicScheduling and Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y TecnológicoNational Science Foundation
KeywordsKnapsack problemMathematicsApproximation algorithmCombinatoricsPolynomial-time approximation schemeScheduling (production processes)AlgorithmTime complexityCover (algebra)Discrete mathematicsJob shop schedulingScheduleMathematical optimizationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the following single-machine scheduling problem, which is often denoted $1||\sum f_{j}$: we are given $n$ jobs to be scheduled on a single machine, where each job $j$ has an integral processing time $p_j$, and there is a nondecreasing, nonnegative cost function $f_j(C_{j})$ that specifies the cost of finishing $j$ at time $C_{j}$; the objective is to minimize $\sum_{j=1}^n f_j(C_j)$. Bansal and Pruhs recently gave the first constant approximation algorithm with a performance guarantee of 16. We improve on this result by giving a primal-dual pseudo-polynomial-time algorithm based on the recently introduced knapsack-cover inequalities. The algorithm finds a schedule of cost at most four times the constructed dual solution. Although we show that this bound is tight for our algorithm, we leave open the question of whether the integrality gap of the linear program is less than 4. Finally, we show how the technique can be adapted to yield, for any $\epsilon >0$, a polynomial time $(4+\epsilon )$-approximation algorithm for this problem.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSIAM Journal on Discrete MathematicsSame topicScheduling and Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207