Order Acceptance and Scheduling: A Taxonomy and Review

Over the past 20 years, the topic of order acceptance has attracted considerable attention from those who study scheduling and those who practice it. In a firm that strives to align its functions so that profit is maximized, the coordination of capacity with demand may require that business sometimes be turned away. In particular, there is a trade-off between the revenue brought in by a particular order, and all of its associated costs of processing. The present study focuses on the body of research that approaches this trade-off by considering two decisions: which orders to accept for processing, and how to schedule them. This paper presents a taxonomy and a review of this literature, catalogs its contributions and suggests opportunities for future research in this area

Any-Order Online Interval Selection

We consider the problem of online interval scheduling on a single machine, where intervals arrive online in an order chosen by an adversary, and the algorithm must output a set of non-conflicting intervals. Traditionally in scheduling theory, it is assumed that intervals arrive in order of increasing start times. We drop that assumption and allow for intervals to arrive in any possible order. We call this variant any-order interval selection (AOIS). We assume that some online acceptances can be revoked, but a feasible solution must always be maintained. For unweighted intervals and deterministic algorithms, this problem is unbounded. Under the assumption that there are at most $k$ different interval lengths, we give a simple algorithm that achieves a competitive ratio of $2k$ and show that it is optimal amongst deterministic algorithms, and a restricted class of randomized algorithms we call memoryless, contributing to an open question by Adler and Azar 2003; namely whether a randomized algorithm without access to history can achieve a constant competitive ratio. We connect our model to the problem of call control on the line, and show how the algorithms of Garay et al. 1997 can be applied to our setting, resulting in an optimal algorithm for the case of proportional weights. We also discuss the case of intervals with arbitrary weights, and show how to convert the single-length algorithm of Fung et al. 2014 into a classify and randomly select algorithm that achieves a competitive ratio of 2k. Finally, we consider the case of intervals arriving in a random order, and show that for single-lengthed instances, a one-directional algorithm (i.e. replacing intervals in one direction), is the only deterministic memoryless algorithm that can possibly benefit from random arrivals. Finally, we briefly discuss the case of intervals with arbitrary weights.Comment: 19 pages, 11 figure

New Results on Online Resource Minimization

We consider the online resource minimization problem in which jobs with hard deadlines arrive online over time at their release dates. The task is to determine a feasible schedule on a minimum number of machines. We rigorously study this problem and derive various algorithms with small constant competitive ratios for interesting restricted problem variants. As the most important special case, we consider scheduling jobs with agreeable deadlines. We provide the first constant ratio competitive algorithm for the non-preemptive setting, which is of particular interest with regard to the known strong lower bound of n for the general problem. For the preemptive setting, we show that the natural algorithm LLF achieves a constant ratio for agreeable jobs, while for general jobs it has a lower bound of Omega(n^(1/3)). We also give an O(log n)-competitive algorithm for the general preemptive problem, which improves upon the known O(p_max/p_min)-competitive algorithm. Our algorithm maintains a dynamic partition of the job set into loose and tight jobs and schedules each (temporal) subset individually on separate sets of machines. The key is a characterization of how the decrease in the relative laxity of jobs influences the optimum number of machines. To achieve this we derive a compact expression of the optimum value, which might be of independent interest. We complement the general algorithmic result by showing lower bounds that rule out that other known algorithms may yield a similar performance guarantee