Skip to main content

Non-clairvoyant Scheduling Games

  • Conference paper
Algorithmic Game Theory (SAGT 2009)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNTCS,volume 5814))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In a scheduling game, each player owns a job and chooses a machine to execute it. While the social cost is the maximal load over all machines (makespan), the cost (disutility) of each player is the completion time of its own job. In the game, players may follow selfish strategies to optimize their cost and therefore their behaviors do not necessarily lead the game to an equilibrium. Even in the case there is an equilibrium, its makespan might be much larger than the social optimum, and this inefficiency is measured by the price of anarchy – the worst ratio between the makespan of an equilibrium and the optimum. Coordination mechanisms aim to reduce the price of anarchy by designing scheduling policies that specify how jobs assigned to a same machine are to be scheduled. Typically these policies define the schedule according to the processing times as announced by the jobs. One could wonder if there are policies that do not require this knowledge, and still provide a good price of anarchy. This would make the processing times be private information and avoid the problem of truthfulness. In this paper we study these so-called non-clairvoyant policies. In particular, we study the RANDOM policy that schedules the jobs in a random order without preemption, and the EQUI policy that schedules the jobs in parallel using time-multiplexing, assigning each job an equal fraction of CPU time.

For these models we study two important questions, the existence of Nash equilibria and the price of anarchy. We show under some restrictions that the game under RANDOM policy is a potential game for two unrelated machines but it is not for three or more; for uniform machines, we prove that the game under this policy always possesses a Nash equilibrium by using a novel potential function with respect to a refinement of best-response dynamic. Moreover, we show that the game under the EQUI policy is a potential game.

Next, we analyze the inefficiency of EQUI policy. Interestingly, the (strong) price of anarchy of EQUI, a non-clairvoyant policy, is asymptotically the same as that of the best strongly local policy – policies in which a machine may look at the processing time of jobs assigned to it. The result also indicates that knowledge of jobs’ characteristics is not necessarily needed.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Angel, E., Bampis, E., Pascual, F.: Truthful algorithms for scheduling selfish tasks on parallel machines. Theoretical Computer Science (TCS) 369, 157–168 (2006)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Aspnes, J., Azar, Y., Fiat, A., Plotkin, S.A., Waarts, O.: On-line routing of virtual circuits with applications to load balancing and machine scheduling. Journal of the ACM 44(3), 486–504 (1997)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Awerbuch, B., Azar, Y., Richter, Y., Tsur, D.: Tradeoffs in worst-case equilibria. Theoretical Computer Science 361(2-3), 200–209 (2006)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. Azar, Y., Naor, J., Rom, R.: The competitiveness of on-line assignments. Journal of Algorithms 18(2), 221–237 (1995)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Azar, Y., Jain, K., Mirrokni, V.S.: (Almost) Optimal Coordination Mechanisms for Unrelated Machine Scheduling. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 323–332 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brucker, P.: Scheduling Algorithms, 3rd edn. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Caragiannis, I.: Efficient coordination mechanisms for unrelated machine scheduling. In: SODA, pp. 815–824 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cho, Y., Sahni, S.: Bounds for list schedules on uniform processors. SIAM Journal on Computing 9, 91–103 (1980)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Christodoulou, G., Koutsoupias, E., Nanavati, A.: Coordination mechanisms. In: Díaz, J., Karhumäki, J., Lepistö, A., Sannella, D. (eds.) ICALP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3142, pp. 345–357. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Czumaj, A., Vöcking, B.: Tight bounds for worst-case equilibria. In: Proceedings of the 13th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms, pp. 413–420 (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dobson, G.: Scheduling independent tasks on uniform processors. SIAM Journal on Computing 13, 721–726 (1984)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Durr, C., Kim, T.N.: Non-clairvoyant scheduling games, http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/~thang/Papers/EQUI.pdf

  13. Edmonds, J.: Scheduling in the dark. In: Proceedings of the 31st ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, STOC (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fiat, A., Kaplan, H., Levy, M., Olonetsky, S.: Strong Price of Anarchy for Machine Load Balancing. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming, pp. 583–594 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Finn, G., Horowitz, E.: A linear time approximation algorithm for multiprocessor scheduling. BIT 19, 312–320 (1979)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Friesen, D.K.: Tighter bounds for LPT scheduling on uniform processors. SIAM Journal on Computing 16, 554–560 (1987)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Gairing, M., Lücking, T., Mavronicolas, M., Monien, B.: Computing Nash equilibria for scheduling on restricted parallel links. In: 36th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 613–622 (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Graham, R.L.: Bounds for certain multiprocessing anomalies. Bell System Technical Journal 45, 1563–1581 (1966)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Graham, R.L.: Bounds on multiprocessing timing anomalies. SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics 45, 416–429 (1969)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ibarra, O.H., Kim, C.E.: Heuristic algorithms for scheduling independent tasks on nonidentical processors. Journal of the ACM 24, 280–289 (1977)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Immorlica, N., Li, L., Mirrokni, V.S., Schulz, A.: Coordination Mechanisms for Selfish Scheduling. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Internet and Network Economics, pp. 55–69 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Monderer, D., Shapley, L.S.: Potential games. Games and Economic Behavior 14, 124–143 (1996)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Schuurman, P., Vredeveld, T.: Performance guarantees of local search for multiprocessor scheduling. Informs Journal on Computing 361(1), 52–63 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Vredeveld, T.: Combinatorial Approximation Algorithms: Guaranteed Versus Experimental Performance. PhD thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands (2002)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Dürr, C., Nguyen, K.T. (2009). Non-clairvoyant Scheduling Games. In: Mavronicolas, M., Papadopoulou, V.G. (eds) Algorithmic Game Theory. SAGT 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5814. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04645-2_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04645-2_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-04644-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-04645-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics