Mathematics of Operations Research
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


MATHEMATICS OF OPERATIONS RESEARCH
Vol. 34, No. 2, May 2009, pp. 417-427
DOI: 10.1287/moor.1080.0368
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nagarajan, V.
Right arrow Articles by Sviridenko, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content

Tight Bounds for Permutation Flow Shop Scheduling

Viswanath Nagarajan, Maxim Sviridenko

Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York 10598

viswa{at}cmu.edu
sviri{at}us.ibm.com

In flow shop scheduling there are m machines and n jobs, such that every job has to be processed on the machines in the fixed order 1,...,m. In the permutation flow shop problem, it is also required that each machine process the set of all jobs in the same order. Formally, given n jobs along with their processing times on each machine, the goal is to compute a single permutation of the jobs {sigma}: [n] -> [n] that minimizes the maximum job completion time (makespan) of the schedule resulting from {sigma}. The previously best known approximation guarantee for this problem was O((m log m)1/2) [Sviridenko, M. 2004. A note on permutation flow shop problem. Ann. Oper. Res. 129 247–252]. In this paper, we obtain an improved O(min{m1/2,n1/2}) approximation algorithm for the permutation flow shop scheduling problem, by finding a connection between the scheduling problem and the longest increasing subsequence problem. Our approximation ratio is relative to the lower bounds of maximum job length and maximum machine load, and is the best possible such result. This also resolves an open question from Potts et al. [Potts, C., D. Shmoys, D. Williamson. 1991. Permutation vs. nonpermutation flow shop schedules. Oper. Res. Lett. 10 281–284], by algorithmically matching the gap between permutation and nonpermutation schedules.

We also consider the weighted completion time objective for the permutation flow shop scheduling problem. Using a natural linear programming relaxation and our algorithm for the makespan objective, we obtain an O(min{m1/2,n1/2}) approximation algorithm for minimizing the total weighted completion time, improving on the previously best known guarantee of {varepsilon}m for any constant {varepsilon} > 0 [Smutnicki, C. 1998. Some results of the worst-case analysis for flow shop scheduling. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 109 66–87]. We give a matching lower bound on the integrality gap of our linear programming relaxation.

Key Words: approximation algorithms; shop scheduling; increasing subsequence
History: Received: February 8, 2008; revision received: October 13, 2008;





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by INFORMS.