Branch-and-bound method for minimizing the weighted completion time scheduling problem on a single machine with release dates

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2011.05.024Get rights and content

Abstract

In this paper, we consider a single-machine scheduling problem with release dates. The aim is to minimize the total weighted completion time. This problem is known to be strongly NP-hard. We propose two new lower bounds that can be, respectively, computed in O(n2) and in O(nlogn) time where n is the number of jobs. We prove a sufficient and necessary condition for local optimality, which can also be considered as a priority rule. We present an efficient heuristic using such a condition. We also propose some dominance properties. A branch-and-bound algorithm incorporating the heuristic, the lower bounds and the dominance properties is proposed and tested on a large set of instances.

Highlights

► In this paper, we consider a single machine scheduling problem with release dates. ► We propose two new lower bounds that can be, respectively, computed in O(n2) and in O(nlnn). ► We present a new efficient heuristic which is complementary with the existence results. ► We propose some dominance properties and a branch-and-bound algorithm capable of solving problems with up to 120 jobs.

Introduction

In this paper, we consider the scheduling of a set N of n jobs with release dates on a single machine, with the aim of minimizing the total weighted completion time. The machine can process at most one job at a time. Every job Ji has a positive processing time pi, a positive release date ri and a positive weight wi. Given a schedule S of jobs, we denote the completion time of job Ji as Ci(S). Without loss of generality, we assume that the jobs are sorted in nondecreasing order of their release dates. The aim is to find a schedule to minimize the total weighted completion time wiCi. According to the standard machine scheduling classification, this problem is denoted as 1|ri|wiCi [1]. Given the aim of this paper, we recall the following related works.

Lenstra et al. [2] showed that this problem is strongly NP-hard. Labetoulle et al. [3] proved that this problem remains strongly NP-hard even if preemption is allowed. When all release dates are equal, the problem can be solved by the shortest weighted processing time (SWPT) rule [4] in which jobs are sorted in nondecreasing order of pi/wi. For the problem with arbitrary weights, Rinaldi and Sassano [5] and Bianco and Ricciardelli [6] proposed several dominance properties. The exploitation of various mixed integer programming formulations to generate lower bounds was investigated by Dyer and Wolsey [7]. A branch-and-bound algorithm was proposed by Hariri and Potts [8] in which the lower bound is obtained using a Lagrangian relaxation. Belouadah et al. [9] proposed a new lower bound based on the job splitting principle and new dominance rules. They developed a branch-and-bound algorithm able to solve problems with up to 50 jobs. Jouglet et al. [10] elaborated other dominance properties and they proposed a branch-and-bound method able to solve problems with up to 100 jobs. Pan [11] proposed an improving branch-and-bound method for the problem 1|di|wiCi based on the works of Potts and Van Wassenhove [12] and Posner [13].

The development of polynomial time approximation algorithms received much attention. For 1|ri,pmtn|wiCi, Goemans et al. [14] proposed 1.47-approximation algorithm. Such a result improves the 2-approximation algorithm of Hall et al. [15]. Skutella [16] improved this result by a 4/3-approximation algorithm and he constructed a 1.6853-approximation algorithm for 1|ri|wiCi. Afrati et al. [17] proposed an efficient polynomial time approximation scheme for the single-machine case and extended it to the parallel-machine problem.

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the two proposed lower bounds. In Section 3, the dominance rules and a heuristic algorithm are proposed. Section 4 presents the branch-and-bound algorithm that we design. The different numerical experiments are summarized in Section 5. Finally, some concluding remarks are discussed in Section 6.

Section snippets

Lower bounds

In this section, we present two lower bounding schemes which can be useful to evaluate the quality of a feasible schedule. The first bound is based on exchanging weights and job splitting. The second proposed bound is based on a new splitting scheme, which allows us to exploit the good property of the Shortest Remaining Processing Time (SRPT) rule that can optimally solve 1|ri,pmtn|Ci [18].

Dominance properties

We define a dominance relation between partial schedules, which can help us to prune nodes. We denote F(σ) the total weighted completion time for jobs in the partial schedule σ, Cσ the completion time of the last job in σ and Ω(σ) is the schedule composed of σ and completed by the optimal partial schedule of the remaining jobs.

Let Ri(ϕμ)=max(ϕμ,ri) and Ei(ϕμ)=Ci(ϕμ)=Ri(ϕμ)+pi denote, respectively, the earliest starting time, earliest completion time of job i at time ϕμ and by Δi the completion

Branch-and-bound algorithm

The proposed branch-and-bound algorithm uses a basic scheme. During the computation, we keep the list of nonexplored nodes arranged in increasing order of the corresponding lower bounds (ties are broken according to the nonincreasing order of the number of scheduled jobs). Each node represents a partial schedule which is also a partial list. The algorithm always tries to develop the head of the list. The branching from a node consists in creating new nodes by adding an unscheduled job to the

Computational results

This section describes the computational results obtained for the proposed branch-and-bound algorithm. The branch-and-bound algorithm was coded in the C Language on 2.80 GHz Pentium D processor with 2 Giga RAM. The branching strategy is the breadth-first strategy to take advantage of Theorem 3.1.

For each job j, an integer processing times pj from the uniform distribution [1,100] and an integer wj from the uniform distribution [1,10] was generated. Release dates were generated from the uniform

Conclusion

In this paper, we investigated the single-machine scheduling problem with the aim of minimizing the total weighted completion time, under release dates assumption. The main contribution of this paper lies in the two proposed new lower bounds. We showed that these lower bounds are complementary to an existing one. For this reason, our choice was to compute all of them to get the tightest possible bound. Our current work consists in analyzing the cases where our new bounds are smaller than the

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the anonymous referees for their constructive remarks and suggestions.

References (20)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (15)

  • An exact dynamic programming algorithm for the precedence-constrained class sequencing problem

    2020, Computers and Operations Research
    Citation Excerpt :

    Interested readers are referred to (Morin and Marsten, 1976; Easton, 1990; Mingozzi et al., 1997; Sewell and Jacobson, 2012). Similar techniques can be found in branch-and-bound algorithms, see e.g., (Demeulemeester and Herroelen, 1992; Allahverdi and Al-Anzi, 2006; Nessah and Kacem, 2012). In this paper, we exploit the recursive structure of our problem formulation.

  • Minimizing the makespan on a single machine with flexible maintenances and jobs’ release dates

    2017, Computers and Operations Research
    Citation Excerpt :

    Some researchers study the scheduling problems considering the jobs’ release dates without the maintenance consideration. The related studies in this field can be found in [29–31], etc. To the best of our knowledge, only one paper simultaneously considers the maintenance constraints and jobs’ release dates.

  • A hybrid differential evolution approach based on surrogate modelling for scheduling bottleneck stages

    2016, Computers and Operations Research
    Citation Excerpt :

    Therefore, DP-SM is much faster than DP-BB in terms of computation time but may be less accurate. Furthermore, in the initialization step, each individual is evaluated through the B&B algorithm [23]. After that, we can obtain an IELM model by applying the construction method described in Section 4.1.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text