450 likes | 468 Views
This paper discusses approximation algorithms and mechanism design for scheduling jobs on selfish related machines.
E N D
Truthful Approximation Mechanisms for Scheduling Selfish Related Machines Motti Sorani, Nir Andelman & Yossi Azar Tel-Aviv University
The Classic Scheduling Problem • Scheduling jobs on uniformly related machines • n Jobs: • m machines with different speeds: • The objective: minimize the maximum completion time over all machines (Makespan) • Known to be NP-Complete • Several approximation-algorithms
Scheduling Jobs on Selfish Related Machines • One-Parameter problem • Machines are owned by rational selfish agents
Scheduling Jobs on Selfish Related Machines • The machine’s speed is known to its owner only.Thesecret: the cost per unit of work
Scheduling Jobs on Selfish Related Machines • Job sizes are common knowledge • The system wants to execute the jobs while minimizing the makespan
Scheduling Jobs on Selfish Related Machines • The cost of machine is where is the total amount of work assigned to it. • The machines getpaid. The goal of each machine is to maximize its profit.
Watching the Game The jobs: 12,10, 7, 5, 4, 4, 3
Watching the Game The jobs: 12,10, 7, 5, 4, 4, 3 First Phase: Bidding
Watching the Game The jobs: 12,10, 7, 5, 4, 4, 3 Second Phase: The system allocates the jobs to the machines according to their declared bids, and simultaneously delivers the payments Makespan=12 3 5 10 4 7 12 4 16 15 13
Truthful Mechanism Design M=(A,P) A : Allocation Algorithm P : Payment
Truthful Mechanism Design M=(A,P) A : Allocation Algorithm P : Payment
Mechanism Design • The idea: Overcome selfishness by payments • Mechanism M=(A,P) • Strategy for agent : • The outcome of the algorithm is • The work allocated to agent : • The payment to agent : • The profit of agent : Observation: Paying each agent its cost is not truthful
Truthful Mechanism • Dominant strategy for agent : • Truthfulness: truth-telling ( ) is a dominant strategy for each agent • VCG is not applicable as the objective is not utilitarian (maximize “social welfare”) Our goal: Design a Truthful Mechanism M=(A,P)which approximates the Minimum Makespan
Truthful Mechanism • Consider the work assigned to agent as a single-variable function of • Work-curve Truthfulness <=> Monotone Algorithm
Truthful Mechanism Theorem [Archer and Tardos]: A mechanism is truthful and admits a voluntaryparticipation iff (a) the work-curve for each agent is decreasing,(b) and the payments in this case should be
Monotone Algorithms • Truthful Mechanism: • Monotone Algorithm • Payment scheme • The work-curve profit cost
Overbidding less profit lesspayment slower faster
Underbidding loss
Previous Results - Approximation • Gonzalez et al: 2-approximation LPT greedy assignment • Horowitz and Sahni: FPTAS for constant number of machines • Hochbaum and Shmoys:PTAS for arbitrary number of machines All these algorithms are not monotone
Previous Results – Mechanism Design • Monotone Algorithm (not polytime) [Archer & Tardos]: • optimal solution • satisfies voluntary participation Among the optimal allocations of jobs, select the one in which the work-vector is lexicographically minimum.
Previous Results – Mechanism Design Scenario: gradual slowdown Slowing down
Previous Results – Mechanism Design • Classic approximation algorithms are not monotone. • Archer and Tardos: randomized truthful 3-approximation mechanism (truthful in expectation) • Auletta et al: deterministic truthful (4+ε)-approximation mechanism for any fixed number of machines
Notions of Truthfulness • Truthfulness in expectation: bidding truthfully always maximizes the agent's expected profit • Universal truthfulnessbidding truthfully always maximizes an agent's profit, no matter what the other agents bid, and no matter what are the outcomes of the mechanism's random coin flips
Our Results • Deterministic 5-approximation truthful mechanism for arbitrary number of machines • Deterministic truthful (F)PTAS for any fixed number of machines We now show a simplified version for arbitrary number of machines which achieves a 12-approximation truthful mechanism.
Valid Fractional Assignment • Given a threshold T, treat the machines as bins of size T/bi • Fractional Assignment – Partition each job to pieces, assign the pieces to the bins • Valid Fractional Assignment • Each bin is large enough to contain all pieces assigned to it • For every piece assigned to a bin, the bin is capable of containing the entire job (which the piece belongs to) • – The smallest threshold for which a valid fractional assignment exists.
Valid Fractional Assignment • Example • Jobs: 7,5,4,3,3,2 • Bids: 1/5, 1/4, 1/3 • Threshold = 2 3 2 5 4 3 7 5 3 bin size: 6 8 10
Valid Fractional Assignment • can be calculated in a greedy manner • is a lower-bound to Opt
Monotonicity of Tf • Observation: • behaves in a “monotone manner” • For any machine i which is not the fastest (i>1)
Truthful Mechanism for arbitrary number of Machines • Guidelines of algorithm Monotone-RF • Round the bids to the closest power of 4 • Sort the jobs in non-increasing order • Calculate a valid fractional assignment and an appropriate threshold Tf • Assign jobs (using the rounded bids) in non-increasing order of size, from the fastest to the slowest (breaking ties by external ID) • The first machine – until a threshold of 2Tf is exceeded • Rest of the machines – until a threshold Tf is exceeded • Return the assignment Init: fractional: rounding:
Truthful Mechanism for arbitrary number of Machines slowest fastest …
Monotonicity of Monotone-RF • Intuition: Assigning jobs according the rounded bids forces non-increasing work-curves • From now on we assume the bids are equal to the real speeds. • We shall show : Slowing down => Less/Equal Amount of work
Why Rounding the Bids Helps? • behaves in a “monotone manner” • For any machine i which is not the fastest (i>1) • Say the rounded bid is multiplied by 4 Total work is At most Total work is At least
Scenarios of Slowdowns • The unique fastest behaves differently:Rounding is not enough • The bad scenario: The fastest machine slows down one step (the rounded bid is multiplied by 4) and some other machine becomes the fastest
Scenarios of Slowdowns • Solution: Double the threshold for the bin of the unique fastest machine • When it slows down one step ,two cases: • Remains the unique fastest: • Bin size can not increase • Jobs are allocated in the same order • No longer the fastest: losing the doubled threshold balances the possible increase of the threshold.
Analysis for Partially-Full and Empty Machines • So far we considered full machines only The Red Machine slows down
Monotonicity by Gradual Slowdown • Monotone-RF is monotone. Hence a Mechanism based on Monotone-RF and payment schemeis truthful
Truthfulness - Remark • The work-curve
Approximation Analysis • The first bin capacity: • is a lower-bound to Opt. • Speeds were rounded to powers of 4 • A Total of 12-approximation
Guidelines for 5-Approximation • Prefer the fastest machine already in the rounding phase. • Make sure the first bin is at least 4 times the second one • For any machine i which is not the fastest (i>1) • Speeds can be rounded to powers of 2.5 • A Total of 5-approximation
Truthful PTAS-Mechanism for Any Fixed Number of Machines Exact Minimum-Lexicographically Solution
Truthfulness of Monotone-PTAS • Job sizes were generated independently from the bids • The optimal Min. Lex. Solution is monotone
Approximation Analysis • Running Time is linear • Assume we do not use machines slower than • The chunks add multiplicative overhead of (1+ε) • The assumption above adds another multiplicative overhead of (1+ε)
Guidelines for the FPTAS • Uses any c-approximation algorithm as a black box, generates a c(1+ε)-approximation • Rounds the bids to powers of (1+ε) • Calculate all possible (sorted) assignments made by the black box • Try all assignments on the given rounded bids-vector. Pick the one with minimal makespan, or if more than one exists, the one which is lexicographically maximum.
Conclusions and Open Problems • We have shown • Deterministic 5-approximation truthful mechanism for assigning jobs on related machines • A (F)PTAS truthful mechanism for any fixed number of machines • Is there a PTAS truthful mechanism for arbitrary number of Machines?