Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js
Research article

A linear time approximation scheme for scheduling unbounded batch machines with delivery times and inclusive processing set restrictions

  • Received: 20 May 2022 Revised: 15 September 2022 Accepted: 15 September 2022 Published: 21 September 2022
  • We consider the problem of scheduling jobs with delivery times and inclusive processing set restrictions on unbounded batch machines to minimize the maximum delivery completion time, which is equivalent to minimizing the maximum lateness from the optimization viewpoint. We develop a polynomial time approximation scheme for this strongly NP-hard problem that runs in linear time for any fixed accuracy requirement.

    Citation: Xiaofang Zhao, Shuguang Li. A linear time approximation scheme for scheduling unbounded batch machines with delivery times and inclusive processing set restrictions[J]. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(11): 4209-4219. doi: 10.3934/era.2022213

    Related Papers:

    [1] Shuguang Li, Yong Sun, Muhammad Ijaz Khan . Single machine Pareto scheduling with positional deadlines and agreeable release and processing times. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(5): 3050-3063. doi: 10.3934/era.2023154
    [2] Chuanyao Li, Yichao Lu, Yuqiang Wang, Gege Jiang . Congestion behavior and tolling strategies in a bottleneck model with exponential scheduling preference. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(2): 1065-1088. doi: 10.3934/era.2023053
    [3] Xiaopeng Yi, Huey Tyng Cheong, Zhaohua Gong, Chongyang Liu, Kok Lay Teo . Dynamic optimization of a two-stage fractional system in microbial batch process. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(12): 6680-6697. doi: 10.3934/era.2024312
    [4] E. A. Abdel-Rehim . The time evolution of the large exponential and power population growth and their relation to the discrete linear birth-death process. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(7): 2487-2509. doi: 10.3934/era.2022127
    [5] Pan Zhang, Lan Huang . Stability for a 3D Ladyzhenskaya fluid model with unbounded variable delay. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(12): 7602-7627. doi: 10.3934/era.2023384
    [6] Ming Wei, Congxin Yang, Bo Sun, Binbin Jing . A multi-objective optimization model for green demand responsive airport shuttle scheduling with a stop location problem. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(10): 6363-6383. doi: 10.3934/era.2023322
    [7] Jun Liu, Yue Liu, Xiaoge Yu, Xiao Ye . An efficient numerical method based on QSC for multi-term variable-order time fractional mobile-immobile diffusion equation with Neumann boundary condition. Electronic Research Archive, 2025, 33(2): 642-666. doi: 10.3934/era.2025030
    [8] Yu Shen, Hecheng Li . A multi-strategy genetic algorithm for solving multi-point dynamic aggregation problems with priority relationships of tasks. Electronic Research Archive, 2024, 32(1): 445-472. doi: 10.3934/era.2024022
    [9] Li-Bin Liu, Ying Liang, Jian Zhang, Xiaobing Bao . A robust adaptive grid method for singularly perturbed Burger-Huxley equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(4): 1439-1457. doi: 10.3934/era.2020076
    [10] Jun Pan, Yuelong Tang . Two-grid $ H^1 $-Galerkin mixed finite elements combined with $ L1 $ scheme for nonlinear time fractional parabolic equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(12): 7207-7223. doi: 10.3934/era.2023365
  • We consider the problem of scheduling jobs with delivery times and inclusive processing set restrictions on unbounded batch machines to minimize the maximum delivery completion time, which is equivalent to minimizing the maximum lateness from the optimization viewpoint. We develop a polynomial time approximation scheme for this strongly NP-hard problem that runs in linear time for any fixed accuracy requirement.



    Machine scheduling problems with processing set restrictions have been extensively studied in the past few decades. In this class of problems, we are given a set of n jobs J={1,2,,n} and a set of m parallel machines M={M1,M2,,Mm}. Each job j is associated with a subset of machines MjM, called its processing set, whose members are capable of processing job j. Each machine can process at most one job at a time. The goal is to find an optimal schedule where optimality is defined by some problem-dependent objective. The current research on scheduling problems with processing set restrictions is dominated by models with the makespan objective. Leung and Li [1,2] surveyed the state of the art of these problems.

    It is well known that parallel machine scheduling problems are usually strongly NP-hard for standard objective functions (such as minimizing makespan, minimizing total weighted completion time), even with equal release times and without processing set restrictions. Most of the previous researches thus have concentrated the efforts on polynomial time approximation algorithms. The performance of an approximation algorithm can be measured by its approximation ratio. For a given instance I of a minimization problem and an approximation algorithm A, let A(I) and OPT(I) denote the objective value of the solution obtained by algorithm A and the optimal solution value, respectively, when applied to I. If A(I)/OPT(I)ρ for all I, then we say that algorithm A has an approximation ratio ρ, and A is called a ρ-approximation algorithm for this problem. A polynomial time approximation scheme (PTAS) is an approximation algorithm which for any instance I and any fixed accuracy requirement ε>0 produces a solution with a running time polynomial in the input size of I such that A(I)/OPT(I)1+ε [3].

    A particularly important special case of processing set restrictions that has received considerable attention is the so-called inclusive processing set restriction. In this case, for each pair Mj1 and Mj2, either Mj1Mj2 or Mj2Mj1. The problem of minimizing makespan with release times and inclusive processing set restrictions is denoted as P|rj,Mj(inclusive)|Cmax, in the three-field notation of Graham et al. [4]. The special case of it where all jobs are released at the same time is denoted as P|Mj(inclusive)|Cmax. There are a number of algorithms for P|Mj(inclusive)|Cmax with increasingly better approximation ratios: a (21/(m1))-approximation algorithm [5,6], a 3/2-approximation algorithm [7], a 4/3-approximation algorithm and a PTAS [8]. Li and Wang [9] presented a PTAS for P|rj,Mj(inclusive)|Cmax which is based on dynamic programming.

    Inclusive processing set restrictions have been extended to bounded batch machines. Each bounded batch machine Mi has a capacity Ki<n. Each job j has a size sj, where 0<sjmaxiKi. Several jobs can be processed simultaneously as a batch on machine Mi, provided that the total size of the jobs in the batch does not exceed Ki. The processing time of a batch is the largest processing time of all the jobs in the batch. This model is called p-batch scheduling model [10]. (There is a rich literature if for each job j we assume 0<sjminiKi. See the survey papers [10,11,12].) Leung and Li [2] used P|pbatch,Mj(inclusive)|Cmax to denote problem P|Mj(inclusive)|Cmax with bounded batch machines. When all jobs have equal processing times, Wang and Leung [13] presented a 2-approximation algorithm for P|pbatch,Mj(inclusive)|Cmax that runs in O(nlogn) time. They also showed that, unless P = NP, for this special case there does not exist any polynomial time algorithm with approximation ratio better than 2. For P|pbatch,Mj(inclusive)|Cmax, Damodaran et al. [14] proposed a particle swarm optimization algorithm, and Jia et al. [15] presented a heuristic based on the First-Fit-Decreasing rule and a meta-heuristic based on Max-Min Ant System.

    To the best of our knowledge, processing set restrictions have not been extended to unbounded batch machines. An unbounded batch machine can process up to B (Bn) jobs simultaneously as a batch, and the processing time of a batch is the largest processing time of all the jobs in the batch [16]. Although the machines have unbounded capacities, a job may not be assigned to some machines due to particular machine eligibility constraints which are determined by factors other than the machine capacities.

    In this paper we consider the problem of scheduling jobs with release times and inclusive processing set restrictions on unbounded batch machines, with a more general objective than makespan minimization, i.e., minimizing the maximum delivery completion time. The problem we study can be formulated as follows. Given a set of n jobs J={1,2,,n} and a set of m unbounded batch machines M={M1,M2,,Mm}. Each unbounded batch machine can process up to B (Bn) jobs simultaneously as a batch, and the processing time of a batch is the largest processing time of all the jobs in the batch. Each job j is characterized by a quadruple of non-negative real numbers (rj,aj,pj,qj), where rj is the release time before which job j cannot be processed, aj is the machine index associated with job j which specifies the smallest index among the machines that can process job j, pj and qj are the processing time and delivery time of job j respectively. Job j can be processed by machine Mi if and only if iaj. The machines in {Maj,Maj+1,,Mm} are called eligible machines for job j. If Sj denotes the time job j starts processing, it has been delivered at time Lj=Sj+pj+qj, which is called its delivery completion time. The goal is to find a schedule so as to minimize the maximum delivery completion time, Lmax=maxjLj. Using the notation of Graham et al. [4], we denote this problem as P|rj,Mj(inclusive),Bn|Lmax. Makespan minimization is a special case of this problem where all qj=0.

    From the optimization viewpoint, the scheduling problem with delivery times and the maximum delivery completion time objective is equivalent to one with due dates and the maximum lateness objective [17]. However, since the lateness of a job can be zero or even negative, the delivery-time model is preferable from the perspective of approximation algorithms [18].

    Much research has been done on scheduling unbounded batch machines without processing set restrictions under various objective functions. We only mention the results with the maximum lateness (or the maximum delivery completion time) objective here. For the single machine case with equal release times, Brucker et al. [16] provided a dynamic programming algorithm that requires O(n2) time, and Wagelmans and Gerodimos [19] presented an improved algorithm that runs in O(nlogn) time. For the single machine case with unequal release times, Cheng et al. [20] established its NP-hardness, and Bai et al. [21] developed a linear time approximation scheme. Liu et al. [22] proved that the problem of scheduling jobs with release times and deadlines on unbounded batch machines is strongly NP-hard. Since this problem is the decision version of P|rj,Bn|Lmax (scheduling jobs with release times on unbounded batch machines to minimize the maximum delivery completion time), P|rj,Bn|Lmax is strongly NP-hard. Liu et al. [22] also presented a PTAS for P|rj,Bn|Lmax. For online scheduling jobs with delivery times on m unbounded batch machines, Fang et al. [23] presented an algorithm with competitive ratio 1.5+o(1), and Liu and Lu [24] presented an algorithm with competitive ratio 1+2/m.

    Since P|rj,Bn|Lmax is a special case of P|rj,Mj(inclusive),Bn|Lmax studied in this paper (scheduling jobs with release times and inclusive processing set restrictions on unbounded batch machines to minimize the maximum delivery completion time), P|rj,Mj(inclusive),Bn|Lmax is also strongly NP-hard. In this paper we present a linear time approximation scheme for P|rj,Mj(inclusive),Bn|Lmax. This result is the best possible in two regards: it achieves the best possible approximation ratio for this strongly NP-hard problem; and it has optimum asymptotic time complexity. This result is inspired by [9,22,25,26]. For the classical scheduling problem (each machine can process at most one job at a time) of minimizing the maximum delivery completion time with release times on parallel machines (without processing set restrictions), Hall and Shmoys [25] presented a PTAS with running time O(npoly(1/ε)), and Mastrolilli [26] developed another one with running time O(n+f(1/ε)), where f(1/ε) is a constant that depends exponentially on 1/ε.

    This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we describe several input transformations so that the input has certain nice structure. In Section 3, we develop a linear time approximation scheme for P|rj,Mj(inclusive),Bn|Lmax. We conclude this paper in Section 4.

    In this section we aim to transform any instance of P|rj,Mj(inclusive),Bn|Lmax into one with a simpler structure. This will make the subsequent dynamic program more efficient.

    A released job j is available for machine Mi if iaj and j has not been assigned to any machine. Let q(Bg)=max{qj|jBg} denote the delivery time of batch Bg. Let a(Bg)=max{aj|jBg} denote the machine index associated with batch Bg. Let Ji={jJ|aj=i}, i=1,2,,m. We have J=mi=1Ji. Let OPT be the objective value of an optimal schedule. Let rmax=maxjrj, pmax=maxjpj, qmax=maxjqj. Clearly we have OPTrmax, OPTpmax, OPTqmax.

    Let ε be an arbitrary small rational number. For simplicity, we assume that 0<ε<1 and 1/ε is integral. We will perform several transformations each of which may potentially increase the objective value by a factor of 1+O(ε). When we describe this type of transformation, we shall say it produces 1+O(ε) loss.

    There is a trivial 3-approximation algorithm for P|rj,Mj(inclusive),Bn|Lmax: wait until time rmax and schedule all the jobs in one batch on machine Mm. Let UB be the objective value of this schedule. We have UBrmax+pmax+qmax3OPT. Let LB=max{rmax,pmax,qmax,UB/3}. We have

    LBOPT3LB. (2.1)

    Let δ=εLB. Following [25], we can assume there are a constant number of different release times and delivery times, as the following lemma states.

    Lemma 2.1. With 1+2ε loss, we assume that there are at most 1/ε+1 different release times and 1/ε+1 different delivery times.

    Proof. For each job j we set rj=rj/δδ, qj=qj/δδ. Since rmax(1/ε)δ and qmax(1/ε)δ, there are at most 1/ε+1 different release times and at most 1/ε+1 different delivery times in the rounded instance. Since the values are rounded down, the optimal objective value of the rounded instance is not greater than OPT. Given a schedule for the rounded instance, we add δ to each job's start time, and re-introduce the original delivery times. Therefore, we get a feasible schedule for the original instance. We may increase the objective value by 2δ2εOPT.

    By the inequalities (2.1) we know OPT(3/ε)δ. Divide the interval [0,(3/ε)δ] into intervals Δ1,Δ2,,Δ1/ε+1, where Δk=[(k1)δ,kδ) denotes the k-th interval for k=1,2,,1/ε, and Δ1/ε+1=[(1/ε)δ,(3/ε)δ] denotes the last interval. Let ρk=(k1)δ denote the k-th release time, k=1,2,,1/ε+1. Similarly, let ξl=(l1)δ denote the l-th delivery time, l=1,2,,1/ε+1.

    A regular scheduling criterion is one that is non-decreasing in the job completion times. Brucker et al. [16] proved that when all the jobs have equal release times, for minimizing any regular objective on an unbounded batch machine, there is an optimal schedule in which the jobs are processed in the batch-SPT order, i.e., for any two batches B1 and B2 in this schedule, if B1 is processed before B2, then there does not exist two jobs j and j such that jB1, jB2 and pj>pj. On the other hand, recall that when all the jobs have equal release times, Jackson's rule [27] solves the classical scheduling problem of minimizing the maximum lateness on a single machine optimally: Schedule the jobs without idle time in order of non-increasing delivery times. Based on these two results, we get the following lemma.

    Lemma 2.2. There is an optimal schedule for P|rj,Mj(inclusive),Bn|Lmax with the following properties:

    for i=1,2,,m (This ordering is used crucially, which means that we handle the machines in increasing order of their indices),

    (i) on machine Mi, the batches started in Δk (k=1,2,,1/ε+1) are processed in strictly increasing order of batch processing times, and this order is also the strictly decreasing order of batch delivery times;

    (ii) on machine Mi, the batches started in Δk (k=1,2,,1/ε+1) are filled in strictly increasing order of processing times such that each batch contains all currently available jobs with processing times no greater than the batch processing time and delivery times no greater than the batch delivery time.

    Proof. Consider an optimal schedule for P|rj,Mj(inclusive),Bn|Lmax. We will transform it into another schedule (without increasing the objective value) that satisfies the properties described in the lemma. We perform the transformations by handling the machines in increasing order of their indices. Suppose that we have handled the machines M1,M2,,Mi1. We now explain how to handle machine Mi.

    We handle the intervals on Mi in increasing order of their indices. Suppose that we have handled the intervals Δ1,Δ2,,Δk1. We now explain how to handle Δk. Recall that the delivery time of batch Bg is defined to be the largest delivery time of all the jobs in Bg. Let B1,B2,,Bx denote the batches which are processed on Mi and started in Δk. Among these batches, if there are two batches having the same delivery time, then we move all the jobs in the batch with smaller processing time into the batch with the larger processing time. Therefore, we can assume that the batches B1,B2,,Bx have different delivery times.

    Since all these batches are scheduled in the same interval, scheduling them in Δk is essentially an instance of the problem where all jobs have equal release times. Therefore, we can apply Jackson's rule to rearrange these batches and thereafter assume without loss generality that the batches B1,B2,,Bx are processed successively on machine Mi one after another and q(B1)>q(B2)>>q(Bx), where q(Bh) denotes the delivery time of batch Bh, h=1,2,,x.

    Among the batches B1,B2,,Bx, if there are two batches Bh1 and Bh2 (1h1<h2x) such that p(Bh1)p(Bh2), then we move all the jobs in Bh2 into Bh1. Accordingly, the completion times of the jobs in Bh2 decrease, while the completion times of the jobs in other batches do not increase. A finite number of repetitions of this procedure yield an optimal schedule which satisfies property (i) described in the lemma (with respect to machine Mi and interval Δk).

    We continue to transform the obtained schedule into the one satisfying property (ii) (with respect to machine Mi and interval Δk). To do so, we first delete all the jobs from the batches B1,B2,,Bx, but retain all the empty batches which are specified by the processing times and delivery times of B1,B2,,Bx. We fill these empty batches in strictly increasing order of processing times such that each batch contains all currently available jobs with processing times no greater than the batch processing time and delivery times no greater than the batch delivery time. Thereby we get an optimal schedule of the required form.

    We repeat the procedure to handle the machines in increasing order of their indices, and within that to handle the intervals on each machine in increasing order of their indices. At the end, we will get an optimal schedule which satisfies the properties described in the lemma.

    Following [25], we classify both jobs and batches as large and small. Job j is large if pjδ/(1/ε+1)2, otherwise it is small. A batch is large if it contains at least a large job, otherwise it is small. We have:

    Lemma 2.3. With 1+ε2 loss, we assume that

    (i) pj=0 for any small job j;

    (ii) no small job is included in large batches;

    (iii) on each machine there is at most one small batch started in each interval.

    Proof. Set pj=0 for any small job j. This will not increase the objective value. Given an optimal schedule for the transformed instance, for the batches started in the same interval on the same machine, we stretch an extra space of length δ/(1/ε+1)2 right before the first batch of these batches to reschedule all the small jobs started in this interval on this machine with the original processing times. Therefore, no small job is included in large batches, and on each machine there is at most one small batch started in each interval. Since there are 1/ε+1 intervals, the objective value may increase by δ/(1/ε+1)ε2OPT.

    Lemma 2.4. With 1+ε loss, the number of different processing times of large jobs, λ, can be bounded from above by (1+ε)/ε41/ε+1.

    Proof. Set pj=pj/(εδ/(1/ε+1)2)(εδ/(1/ε+1)2) for any large job j. This will not increase the objective value. Given an optimal schedule for the transformed instance, re-introduce the original processing times of large jobs. Since for large job j we have pjδ/(1/ε+1)2, the objective value may increase by εOPT. Since δ/(1/ε+1)2pj(1/ε)δ, we get λ(1+ε)/ε41/ε+1.

    Thus, all large jobs have processing times of the form h(εδ/(1/ε+1)2), where h{1/ε,1/ε+1,,(1+ε)/ε4}. Without loss of generality, we assume γ=(1+ε)/ε41/ε+1. Let Pt=(t+1/ε1)(εδ/(1/ε+1)2) denote the t-th processing time of the large jobs, t{1,2,,γ}. In addition, let P0=0 denote the processing time zero of all the small jobs.

    Let nklti be the number of jobs with release time ρk, delivery time ξl, processing time Pt and machine index i, k=1,2,,1/ε+1, l=1,2,,1/ε+1, t=0,1,,λ, i=1,2,,m. Let nklt(i)=ih=1nklth. These values can be computed in O(n+m/ε6) time. (Note that ((1+ε)/ε41/ε+2)(1/ε+1)212/ε6.)

    In this section we will present a linear time approximation scheme for P|rj,Mj(inclusive),Bn|Lmax.

    Consider an optimal schedule Σ that satisfies Lemmas 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4. (After the rounding and before the re-introducing, the objective value of the rounded instance is not greater than OPT.) By Lemma 2.2, we deal with the machines in increasing order of their indices. Let nklt(i) be the number of available jobs for machine Mi with release time ρk, delivery time ξl and processing time Pt, k=1,2,,1/ε+1, l=1,2,,1/ε+1, t=0,1,,λ, i=1,2,,m. Let xklti denote the number of jobs with release time ρk, delivery time ξl and processing time Pt that are assigned to machine Mi in Σ. It must be true that xkltinklt(i), k=1,2,,1/ε+1, l=1,2,,1/ε+1, t=0,1,,λ, i=1,2,,m. We call the set {xklti|k,l,t} an assignment for machine Mi, i=1,2,,m.

    We then delete from Σ all the jobs, but retain all the empty batches. Let Yklti be the set of the empty batches in Σ that are started in interval Δk with delivery time ξl and processing time Pt on machine Mi, k=1,2,,1/ε+1, l=1,2,,1/ε+1, t=0,1,,λ, i=1,2,,m. Let yklti=|Yklti|. By Lemmas 2.2 and 2.3, we have 1/ε+1l=1yklti1, k=1,2,,1/ε+1, t=0,1,,λ, i=1,2,,m. We call the set {yklti|k,l,t} a configuration for machine Mi, i=1,2,,m.

    Example:

    We now demonstrate an example to illustrate the techniques and definitions we discussed so far. We start with a schedule that satisfies Lemma 2.1. Let LB=18 and ε=1/2. We have: δ=εLB=9. By Lemma 2.1, there are three different release times: ρ1=0, ρ2=9, ρ3=18, and three different delivery times: ξ1=0, ξ2=9, ξ3=18. The three time intervals on a machine are: Δ1=[0,9), =[9,18), and Δ3=[18,54). Consider an optimal schedule Σ for P|rj,Mj(inclusive),Bn|Lmax which satisfies Lemma 2.2. Let us fix a particular machine Mi. In Σ, there are three batches started in Δ1 and processed on Mi: B1, B2 and B3; there are only one batch started in Δ2 and processed on Mi: B4; there are two batches started in Δ3 and processed on Mi: B5 and B6. Batch B1 starts at time 0 and completes at time 1/4, which consists of two jobs j1 and j2 with rj1=rj2=ρ1, pj1=1/4, pj2=1/6, qj1=ξ3, qj2=ξ2. Batch B2 starts at time 1/4 and completes at time 3/4, which consists of two jobs j3 and j4 with rj3=rj4=ρ1, pj3=pj4=1/2, qj3=ξ2, qj4=ξ1. Batch B3 starts at time 3/4 and completes at time 1034, which consists of two jobs j5 and j6 with rj5=rj6=ρ1, pj5=pj6=10, qj5=qj6=ξ1. Batch B4 starts at time 1034 and completes at time 1934, which consists of two jobs j7 and j8 with rj7=rj8=ρ2, pj7=9, pj8=5, qj7=ξ3, qj8=ξ2. Batch B5 starts at time 1934 and completes at time 20, which consists of two jobs j9 and j10 with rj9=ρ2, rj10=ρ3, pj9=pj10=1/4, qj9=ξ3, qj10=ξ2. Batch B6 starts at time 20 and completes at time 2012, which consists of two jobs j11 and j12 with rj11=ρ2, rj12=ρ3, pj11=pj12=1/2, qj11=qj12=ξ2.

    Recall that δ/(1/ε+1)2=9/(1/(1/2)+1)2=1 represents the threshold for classifying large and small jobs. Thus, jobs j1,j2,j3,j4,j9,j10,j11,j12 are small jobs, and jobs j5,j6,j7,j8 are large jobs. By Lemma 2.3, we round the processing times of all the small jobs down to zero. By Lemma 2.4, we round the processing times of large jobs down to the nearest integral multiple of εδ/(1/ε+1)2=1/2. (Certainly, for Mi we need not to round down the processing times of the large jobs, because all the large jobs processed on Mi have integral processing times.) Recall that P0=0, and Pt=(t+1/ε1)(εδ/(1/ε+1)2)=(t+1)/2 denotes the t-th processing time of the large jobs, t{1,2,,γ}. Therefore, the processing times of the jobs processed on Mi can be labeled as pj1=pj2=P0, pj3=pj4=P0, pj5=pj6=P19, pj7=P17, pj8=P9, pj9=pj10=P0, pj11=pj12=P0.

    We are now ready to determine the assignment and the configuration for Mi. We have: x1,1,0,i=1 (job j4), x1,2,0,i=2 (jobs j2 and j3), x1,3,0,i=1 (job j1), x2,1,0,i=0, x2,2,0,i=1 (job j11), x2,3,0,i=1 (job j9), x3,1,0,i=0, x3,2,0,i=2 (jobs j10 and j12), x3,3,0,i=0. We also have: x1,1,19,i=2 (jobs j5 and j6), x2,3,17,i=1 (job j7), x2,2,9,i=1 (job j8). All other values of xklti are equal to zero, k=1,2,,1/ε+1, l=1,2,,1/ε+1, t=1,2,,λ. Thereby, we get the set {xklti|k,l,t}, which is the assignment for machine Mi with respect to Σ.

    Furthermore, we have: Y1,3,0,i={ˉB1}, Y1,2,0,i={ˉB2}, Y1,1,19,i={ˉB3}, Y2,3,17,i={ˉB4}, Y3,3,0,i={ˉB5}, Y3,2,0,i={ˉB6}, where ˉBh denotes the empty batch represented by the processing time of Bh, h=1,2,,6. We get: y1,3,0,i=1, y1,2,0,i=1, y1,1,19,i=1, y2,3,17,i=1, y3,3,0,i=1, y3,2,0,i=1. All other values of yklti are equal to zero, k=1,2,,1/ε+1, l=1,2,,1/ε+1, t=0,1,,γ. Thereby, we get the set {yklti|k,l,t}, which is the configuration of machine Mi with respect to Σ.

    Let Σi denote the restriction of Σ to machine Mi, i=1,2,,m. Given the assignment and the configuration for Mi, we can recover Σi by Lemma 2.2: for k=1,2,,1/ε+1, fill the empty batches in 1/ε+1l=1λt=0Yklti in strictly increasing order of processing times (this order is also the strictly decreasing order of batch delivery times except for the possible empty small batch) such that each batch contains all currently available jobs with processing times no greater than the batch processing time and delivery times no greater than the batch delivery time. Since OPT(3/ε)δ, Σi contains at most (3/ε)δ/(δ/(1/ε+1)2)=3(1/ε+1)2/ε empty large batches and at most 1/ε+1 empty small batches. Thus, the recovery of Σi can be done in O((3(1/ε+1)2/ε+1/ε+1)(1/ε+1)2)=O((1/ε)7) time.

    We enumerate the possible configurations for Mi as follows. We have shown that Σi contains at most (3/ε)δ/(δ/(1/ε+1)2)=3(1/ε+1)2/ε empty large batches and at most 1/ε+1 empty small batches. The processing times of large batches are chosen from λ(1+ε)/ε41/ε+1 different values. The delivery times of all the batches are chosen from 1/ε+1 values. Hence, the number of different configurations for machine Mi (i=1,2,,m) can be bounded by (λ(1/ε+1)+1)3(1/ε+1)2/ε(1/ε+2)(1/ε+1)(5/ε5)14/ε3.

    Let D({xklti|k,l,t}) be the maximum delivery completion time of the jobs processed on Mi if assignment {xklti|k,l,t} is adopted. From the above analysis, D({xklti|k,l,t}) can be computed in O((1/ε)7(5/ε5)14/ε3)=O((5/ε5)14/ε3+2) time.

    Let vklti denote the number of jobs with release time ρk, delivery time ξl and processing time Pt that are assigned to machines M1,M2,,Mi in Σ. It must be true that vkltinklt(i), k=1,2,,1/ε+1, l=1,2,,1/ε+1, t=0,1,,λ, i=1,2,,m. For i=1,2,,m, we call the set {vklti|k,l,t} an outline for machines M1,M2,,Mi.

    Let Vi be the set of all possible outlines for machines M1,M2,,Mi, i=1,2,,m. Unbounded batch machines have the following property: for any pair of values of l and t, if vulti>0 for some u{1,2,,1/ε+1}, then vklti=nklt(i) for all k{1,2,,u}. Hence, we get |Vi|(1/ε+2)(1/ε+1)(λ+1)(1/ε+2)6/ε5, i=1,2,,m.

    To solve P|rj,Mj(inclusive),Bn|Lmax, we generalize the dynamic programming approach presented in [9] for P|rj,Mj(inclusive)|Cmax.

    For each {vklti|k,l,t}Vi (i=1,2,,m), Let Fi({vklti|k,l,t}) denote the minimum possible objective value if we use the outline {vklti|k,l,t} for machines M1,M2,,Mi. We are interested in the schedules with objective value at most (3/ε)δ. Therefore, for machines M1,M2,,Mi, we only need to consider the outlines with objective value no greater than (3/ε)δ. Let WiVi be the set of these outlines for machines M1,M2,,Mi, i=1,2,,m.

    We have the following recurrence relation:

    Fi+1({vklt(i+1)|k,l,t})=minwkltivklt(i+1){max{D({vklt(i+1)wklti|k,l,t}),Fi({wklti|k,l,t})}}.

    The boundary conditions are:

    (i) F1({vklt1|k,l,t})=D({vklt1|k,l,t}) if {vklt1|k,l,t}W1, and F1({vklt1|k,l,t})=+ otherwise.

    (ii) Fi({vklti|k,l,t})=+ if {vklti|k,l,t}Wi.

    Finally, the optimal objective value is given by Fm({nklt(m)|k,l,t}).

    The values of nklti and nklt(i) for all k,l,t,i can be computed in O(n+m/ε6) time. Computing D({vklt(i+1)wklti|k,l,t}) takes O((1/ε)7(5/ε5)14/ε3)=O((5/ε5)14/ε3+2) time. Executing the dynamic program takes time O(m(5/ε5)14/ε3+2|Vm|2) =O(m(5/ε5)14/ε3+2((1/ε+2)6/ε5)2)=O(m(5/ε5)14/ε3+2(1/ε+2)12/ε5). Hence, the overall running time of the algorithm is O(n+m(5/ε5)14/ε3+2(1/ε+2)12/ε5).

    Therefore we get:

    Theorem 3.1. Problem P|rj,Mj(inclusive),Bn|Lmax admits a PTAS that runs in linear time for any fixed accuracy requirement.

    In this paper we initiated the study of scheduling jobs with release times, delivery times and inclusive processing set restrictions on unbounded batch machines. The objective is to minimize the maximum delivery completion time. For this strongly NP-hard problem, we presented a linear time approximation scheme. For future research, we can study this problem for other objective functions, such as minimizing total weighted completion time. Moreover, we admit that the proposed PTAS still has a bad dependence on ε. As pointed out by Mnich and Wiese [28], in practice exact algorithms are often desired and it would be interesting to investigate fixed-parameter scheduling. If we take the inverse of ε as a parameter, then what we developed can be seen as a fixed-parameter algorithm (for this parameter). The idea in fixed-parameter algorithms is to accept exponential running times, which are seemingly inevitable in solving NP-hard problems, but to restrict them to certain aspects of the problem, which are captured by parameters [29]. In future research, we can use the techniques of fixed-parameter scheduling to study problems of interest.

    We thank the editor and reviewers for their helpful suggestions. This work is supported by Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province China (No. ZR2020MA030).

    The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.



    [1] J. Y. T. Leunga, C. Li, Scheduling with processing set restrictions: A survey, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 116 (2008), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.09.003 doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.09.003
    [2] J. Y. T. Leunga, C. Li, Scheduling with processing set restrictions: A literature update, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 175 (2016), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.09.038 doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.09.038
    [3] C. H. Papadimitriou, K. Steiglitz, Combinatorial optimization: algorithms and complexity, Courier Dover Publications, 1998.
    [4] R. L. Graham, E. L. Lawler, J. K. Lenstra, A. R. Kan, Optimization and approximation in deterministic sequencing and scheduling: A survey, Ann. Discrete Math., 5 (1979), 287–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5060(08)70356-X doi: 10.1016/S0167-5060(08)70356-X
    [5] D. G. Kafura, V. Y. Shen, Task scheduling on a multiprocessor system with independent memories, SIAM J. Comput., 6 (1977), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1137/0206014 doi: 10.1137/0206014
    [6] H. C. Hwang, S. Y. Chang, Y. Hong, A posterior competitiveness for list scheduling algorithm on machines with eligibility constraints, Asia-Pacific J. Operat. Res., 21 (2004), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217595904000084 doi: 10.1142/S0217595904000084
    [7] C. A. Glass, H. Kellerer, Parallel machine scheduling with job assignment restrictions, Nav. Res. Log., 54 (2007), 250–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.20202 doi: 10.1002/nav.20202
    [8] J. Ou, J. Y. T. Leung, C. L. Li, Scheduling parallel machines with inclusive processing set restrictions, Nav. Res. Log., 55 (2008), 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.20286 doi: 10.1002/nav.20286
    [9] C. L. Li, X. Wang, Scheduling parallel machines with inclusive processing set restrictions and job release times, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 200 (2010), 702–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.02.011 doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2009.02.011
    [10] C. N. Potts, M. Y. Kovalyov, Scheduling with batching: A review. Eur. J. Oper. Res., 120 (2000), 228–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00153-8 doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00153-8
    [11] M. Mathirajan, A. Sivakumar, A literature review, classification and simple meta-analysis on scheduling of batch processors in semiconductor, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech., 29 (2006), 990–1001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-005-2585-1 doi: 10.1007/s00170-005-2585-1
    [12] J. W. Fowler, L. Mönch, A survey of scheduling with parallel batch (p-batch) processing, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 299 (2022), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.06.012 doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2021.06.012
    [13] J. Q. Wang, J. Y. T. Leung, Scheduling jobs with equal-processing-time on parallel machines with non-identical capacities to minimize makespan, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 156 (2014), 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.06.019 doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.06.019
    [14] P. Damodaran, D. A. Diyadawagamage, O. Ghrayeb, M. C. Velez-Gallego, A particle swarm optimization algorithm for minimizing makespan of nonidentical parallel batch processing machines, Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Tech., 58 (2012), 1131–1140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-011-3442-z doi: 10.1007/s00170-011-3442-z
    [15] Z. Jia, K. Li, J. Y. T. Leung, Effective heuristic for makespan minimization in parallel batch machines with non-identical capacities, Int. J. Prod. Econ., 169 (2015), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.07.021 doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.07.021
    [16] P. Brucker, A. Gladky, H. Hoogeveen, M. Y. Kovalyov, C. N. Potts, T. Tautenhahn, et al., Scheduling a batching machine, J. Scheduling, 1 (1998), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1425(199806)1:1<31::AID-JOS4>3.0.CO;2-R doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1425(199806)1:1<31::AID-JOS4>3.0.CO;2-R
    [17] J. Y. T. Leung, Handbook of Scheduling: Algorithms, Models, and Performance Analysis, CRC Press, 2004.
    [18] L. A. Hall, D. B. Shmoys, Jackson's rule for single-machine scheduling: Making a good heuristic better, Math. Oper. Res., 17 (1992), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1287/moor.17.1.22 doi: 10.1287/moor.17.1.22
    [19] A. P. M. Wagelmans, A. E. Gerodimos, Improved dynamic programs for some batching problems involving the maximum lateness criterion, Oper. Res. Lett., 27 (2000), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6377(00)00040-7 doi: 10.1016/S0167-6377(00)00040-7
    [20] T. E. Cheng, Z. Liu, W. Yu, Scheduling jobs with release dates and deadlines on a batch processing machine, IIE Trans., 33 (2001), 685–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/07408170108936864 doi: 10.1080/07408170108936864
    [21] S. Bai, F. Zhang, S. Li, Q. Liu, Scheduling an unbounded batch machine to minimize maximum lateness, Front. Algorithmics, (2007), 172–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73814-5_16 doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-73814-5_16
    [22] L. L. Liu, C. T. Ng, T. C. E. Cheng, Scheduling jobs with release dates on parallel batch processing machines, Discrete Appl. Math., 157 (2009), 1825–1830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2008.12.012 doi: 10.1016/j.dam.2008.12.012
    [23] Y. Fang, X. Lu, P. Liu, Online batch scheduling on parallel machines with delivery times, Theor. Comput. Sci., 412 (2011), 5333–5339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcs.2011.06.011 doi: 10.1016/j.tcs.2011.06.011
    [24] P. Liu, X. Lu, Online unbounded batch scheduling on parallel machines with delivery times, J. Comb. Optim., 29 (2015), 228–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10878-014-9706-4 doi: 10.1007/s10878-014-9706-4
    [25] L. A. Hall, D. B. Shmoys, Approximation schemes for constrained scheduling problems, in Proceedings of the 30th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, (1989), 134–139. https://doi.org/10.1109/SFCS.1989.63468
    [26] M. Mastrolilli, Efficient approximation schemes for scheduling problems with release dates and delivery times, J. Scheduling, 6 (2003), 521–531. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026272526225 doi: 10.1023/A:1026272526225
    [27] J. R. Jackson, Scheduling a production line to minimize maximum tardiness, DTIC Document, 1955.
    [28] M. Mnich, A. Wiese, Scheduling and fixed-parameter tractability, Math. Program., 154 (2015), 533–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10107-014-0830-9 doi: 10.1007/s10107-014-0830-9
    [29] M. Mnich, R. van Bevern, Parameterized complexity of machine scheduling: 15 open problems, Comput. & Oper. Res., 100 (2018), 254–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2018.07.020 doi: 10.1016/j.cor.2018.07.020
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Peiqun Lin, Chenxing He, Lingshu Zhong, Mingyang Pei, Chuhao Zhou, Yang Liu, Bus timetable optimization model in response to the diverse and uncertain requirements of passengers for travel comfort, 2023, 31, 2688-1594, 2315, 10.3934/era.2023118
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2022 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(1279) PDF downloads(52) Cited by(1)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog