Skip to main content
Log in

Interruptible algorithms for multiproblem solving

  • Published:
Journal of Scheduling Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we address the problem of designing an interruptible system in a setting which involves n problem instances. The system schedules executions of a contract algorithm (which offers a trade-off between allowable computation time and quality of the solution) in m identical parallel processors. When an interruption occurs, the system outputs the currently best solution to each of the n problem instances. The quality of this output is then compared to the best possible algorithm that has foreknowledge of the interruption time and must, likewise, produce solutions to all n problem instances. This extends the well-studied setting in which only one problem instance is queried at interruption time. In this work, we first introduce new measures for evaluating the performance of interruptible systems in this setting. In particular, we propose the deficiency of a schedule as a performance measure that meets the requirements of the problem at hand. We then present a schedule whose performance we prove that is within a small factor from optimal in the general, multiprocessor setting. We also show several lower bounds on the deficiency of schedules on a single processor. More precisely, we prove a general lower bound of \((n+1)/n\), an improved lower bound for the two-problem setting (\(n=2\)), and a tight lower bound for the class of round-robin schedules. Our techniques can also yield a simpler, alternative proof of the main result of Bernstein et al. (in: Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp 1211–1217, 2003) concerning the performance of cyclic schedules in multiprocessor environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. With a slight abuse of notation, given a sequence of contract lengths \(x_0,x_1, \ldots \), we will often refer to the contract of length \(x_i\) as the contract\(x_i\). This is only done for simplicity, and we do not require that contracts have pairwise different lengths.

References

  • Alpern, S., & Gal, S. (2003). The theory of search games and rendezvous. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelopoulos, S. (2015). Further connections between contract-scheduling and ray-searching problems. In Proceedings of the 24th International Joint Conference in Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), (pp. 1516–1522).

  • Angelopoulos, S., & López-Ortiz, A. (2009). Interruptible algorithms for multi-problem solving. In Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), (pp. 380–386).

  • Angelopoulos, S., López-Ortiz, A., & Hamel, A. (2017). Optimal scheduling of contract algorithms with soft deadlines. Journal of Scheduling, 20(3), 267–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, D.S., Finkelstein, L., & Zilberstein, S. (2003). Contract algorithms and robots on rays: Unifying two scheduling problems. In Proceedings of the 18th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), (pp. 1211–1217).

  • Bernstein, D.S., Perkins, T.J., Zilberstein, S., & Finkelstein, L. (2002). Scheduling contract algorithms on multiple processors. In Proceedings of the 18th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), (pp. 702–706).

  • Chrobak, M., & Mathieu, C. (2006). Competitiveness via doubling. SIGACT News, 37(4), 115–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dean, T., & Boddy, M.S., (1998). An analysis of time-dependent planning. In Proceedings of the 15th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), (pp. 49–54).

  • Dorrigiv, R., & López-Ortiz, A. (2005). A survey of performance measures for on-line algorithms. SIGACT News (ACM Special Interest Group on Automata and Computability Theory), 36(3), 67–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gal, S. (1980). Search games. Cambridge: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomes, C. P., & Selman, B. (2001). Algorithm portfolios. Artificial Intelligence, 126(1–2), 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, R. (1966). Bounds for certain microprocessing anomalies. Bell System Technical Journal, 45, 1563–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horvitz, E. (1987). Reasoning about beliefs and actions under computational resource constraints. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), (pp. 301–324).

  • Horvitz, E. (1999). Reasoning under varying and uncertain resource constraints. In Proceedings of the 15th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), (pp. 111–116).

  • Kirkpatrick, D.G. (2009). Hyperbolic dovetailing. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA), (pp. 616–627).

  • López-Ortiz, A., Angelopoulos, S., & Hamel, A. M. (2014). Optimal scheduling of contract algorithms for anytime problems. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 51, 533–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGregor, A., Onak, K., & Panigrahy, R. (2009). The oil searching problem. In Proceeding of the 17th European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA), (pp. 504–515).

  • Russell, S.J., & Zilberstein, S. (1991). Composing real-time systems.In Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), (pp. 212–217).

  • Schuierer, S. (2001). Lower bounds in online geometric searching. Computational Geometry: Theory and Applications, 18(1), 37–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Streeter, M.J., & Smith, S.F. (2008). New techniques for algorithm portfolio design. In Proceedings of the 24th Conference in Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), (pp. 519–527).

  • Zilberstein, S. (1996). Using anytime algorithms in intelligent systems. AI Magazine, 17(3), 73–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zilberstein, S., Charpillet, F., & Chassaing, P. (2003). Optimal sequencing of contract algorithms. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 39(1–2), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Spyros Angelopoulos.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

A preliminary version of this paper appeared in the Proceedings of the 21st International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), 2009 Angelopoulos and López-Ortiz (2009).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Angelopoulos, S., López-Ortiz, A. Interruptible algorithms for multiproblem solving. J Sched 23, 451–464 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10951-020-00644-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10951-020-00644-9

Keywords

Navigation