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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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