We propose a unifying framework based on configuration linear programs and randomized rounding, for different energy optimization problems in the dynamic speedscaling setting. We apply our framework to various scheduling and routing problems in heterogeneous computing and networking environments. We first consider the energy minimization problem of scheduling a set of jobs on a set of parallel speed scalable processors in a fully heterogeneous setting. For both the preemptive-non-migratory and the preemptive-migratory variants, our approach allows us to obtain solutions of almost the same quality as for the homogeneous environment. By exploiting the result for the preemptive-non-migratory variant, we are able to improve the best known approximation ratio for the single processor non-preemptive problem. Furthermore, we show that our approach allows to obtain a constant-factor approximation algorithm for the power-aware preemptive job shop scheduling problem. Finally, we consider the min-power routing problem where we are given a network modeled by an undirected graph and a set of uniform demands that have to be routed on integral routes from their sources to their destinations so that the energy consumption is minimized. We improve the best known approximation ratio for this problem.
Mathematical optimization offers highly-effective tools for finding solutions for problems with well-defined goals, notably scheduling. However, optimization solvers are often unexplainable black boxes whose solutions are inaccessible to users and which users cannot interact with. We define a novel paradigm using argumentation to empower the interaction between optimization solvers and users, supported by tractable explanations which certify or refute solutions. A solution can be from a solver or of interest to a user (in the context of ‘what-if’ scenarios). Specifically, we define argumentative and natural language explanations for why a schedule is (not) feasible, (not) efficient or (not) satisfying fixed user decisions, based on models of the fundamental makespan scheduling problem in terms of abstract argumentation frameworks (AFs). We define three types of AFs, whose stable extensions are in one-to-one correspondence with schedules that are feasible, efficient and satisfying fixed decisions, respectively. We extract the argumentative explanations from these AFs and the natural language explanations from the argumentative ones.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.