Paper detail

Approximation Ratio of LD Algorithm for Multi-Processor Scheduling and the Coffman-Sethi Conjecture

Coffman and Sethi proposed a heuristic algorithm, called LD, for multi-processor scheduling, to minimize makespan over flowtime-optimal schedules. LD algorithm is a natural extension of a very well-known list scheduling algorithm, Longest Processing Time (LPT) list scheduling, to our bicriteria scheduling problem. Moreover, in 1976, Coffman and Sethi conjectured that LD algorithm has precisely the following worst-case performance bound: $\frac{5}{4} - \frac{3}{4(4m-1)}$, where m is the number of machines. In this paper, utilizing some recent work by the authors and Huang, from 2013, which exposed some very strong combinatorial properties of various presumed minimal counterexamples to the conjecture, we provide a proof of this conjecture. The problem and the LD algorithm have connections to other fundamental problems (such as the assembly line-balancing problem) and to other algorithms.

preprint2015arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.