Interval scheduling is a classic problem in greedy algorithms. It's all about picking the most non-overlapping tasks from a set, maximizing efficiency without conflicts. This problem pops up in real-world scenarios like booking conference rooms or scheduling TV shows.
The main solution uses the strategy. It's simple but powerful: sort tasks by end time, then pick compatible ones. This greedy approach is proven optimal and runs in O(n log n) time, making it both effective and efficient.
Interval Scheduling Problem
Problem Definition and Objectives
Top images from around the web for Problem Definition and Objectives
Project Initiation, Scope, and Structure – Technical Project Management in Living and Geometric ... View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Interval scheduling selects maximum non- from a given set
Intervals represent tasks or activities with specific durations defined by start and end times
Maximize compatible intervals scheduled without conflicts
Compatible intervals do not overlap in time
Applications span resource allocation, job scheduling, and time management
Formal representation: Set of intervals I = {I1, I2, ..., In}, where Ii = (si, fi)
si denotes start time
fi denotes finish time
Goal finds subset S ⊆ I of maximum size with no overlapping intervals
Mathematical Formulation
Objective function: Maximize |S|, where S is the selected subset of intervals
Constraints: For any two intervals Ii and Ij in S, either fi ≤ sj or fj ≤ si
Decision variables: xi ∈ {0, 1} for each interval Ii
xi = 1 if interval Ii is selected
xi = 0 if interval Ii is not selected
Mathematical model:
Maximize∑i=1nxiSubject to:xi+xj≤1 for all i,j where i=j and intervals Ii and Ij overlapxi∈{0,1} for all i=1,2,...,n
Example Scenarios
Conference room scheduling (multiple meetings with different durations)
Television program scheduling (shows with varying lengths and time slots)
Aircraft gate assignment (flights with arrival and departure times)
Computer processor task scheduling (processes with execution times)
Greedy Algorithms for Scheduling
Common Greedy Strategies
Earliest Finish Time (EFT) selects intervals with earliest end time first
prioritizes intervals with earliest start time
chooses interval with shortest duration at each step
General structure of greedy algorithms for interval scheduling:
Sort intervals based on chosen strategy
Initialize empty solution set
Iteratively add compatible intervals to solution set
Implementation of Earliest Finish Time (EFT) Strategy
Sort intervals by finish time in ascending order
Initialize empty solution set S
For each interval Ii in sorted order:
If Ii does not overlap with any interval in S, add Ii to S
Return solution set S
Pseudocode:
function EFT_Interval_Scheduling(intervals):
sort intervals by finish time
S = {}
for interval in sorted intervals:
if interval does not overlap with any interval in S:
add interval to S
return S
Handling Tie-breaking Scenarios
Multiple intervals may have same priority according to chosen greedy strategy
Tie-breaking methods:
Random selection among tied intervals
Secondary sorting criterion (start time for EFT, finish time for EST)
Interval index as final tie-breaker
Consistent tie-breaking crucial for reproducibility and analysis
Complexity and Optimality of Greedy Solutions
Time and Space Complexity Analysis
primarily determined by sorting step
Comparison-based sorting algorithms yield O(n log n) overall time complexity
n represents number of intervals
Selection process after sorting has linear time complexity O(n)
Total time complexity: O(n log n) + O(n) = O(n log n)
generally O(n) for storing:
Sorted intervals
Solution set
Optimality of Earliest Finish Time (EFT) Algorithm
EFT proven optimal for
Optimality proof shows EFT always produces maximum cardinality set of non-overlapping intervals
Exchange argument technique commonly used in optimality proof:
Assume optimal solution O exists different from EFT solution E
Show E can be transformed into O without reducing number of intervals
Conclude E must be optimal since it cannot be improved
Suboptimality of Other Greedy Strategies
Earliest Start Time (EST) may produce suboptimal solutions
Example: EST might choose long interval starting early, blocking multiple short intervals
Shortest Interval First (SIF) can lead to suboptimal results
Example: SIF might select many short intervals, missing longer, non-overlapping intervals that could increase total scheduled time
Greedy Strategies for Interval Scheduling: Earliest Start vs Earliest Finish
Comparison of EFT and EST Strategies
EFT consistently produces optimal solutions for interval scheduling
EST may yield suboptimal results in certain scenarios
EFT allows more efficient time use by prioritizing earlier-ending intervals
Potentially accommodates more intervals overall
EST preferred when starting tasks early takes precedence over maximizing scheduled intervals
Computational complexity similar for both strategies:
O(n log n) time for sorting
O(n) time for selection
Scenario-based Strategy Selection
EFT optimal for maximizing number of scheduled intervals
Best for general scheduling problems without additional constraints
EST useful in time-critical applications
Example: Emergency response tasks where starting early crucial
SIF effective for minimizing idle time between tasks
Example: Assembly line operations with quick changeovers
Hybrid approaches combining multiple strategies possible for complex scheduling problems
Example: Prioritize early start for high-priority tasks, then use EFT for remaining slots