An algorithm is said to be greedy is it builds up a solution in small steps, choosing a decision at each step myopically to optimize some underlying criterion. When a greedy algorithm succeeds in solving a nontrivial problem optimally, it typically implies something interesting and useful about the structure of the problem itself. There are two basic methods for proving that a greedy algorithm produces an optimal solution to a problem: greedy stays ahead and the exchange argument. Applications of greedy algorithms include shortest paths in a graph, the Minimum Spanning Tree Problem, the construction of Huffman codes for performing data compression, and the Minimum Cost Arbolescence Problem, a more complex application.

Set Up: Consider a set of requests {1, 2, …, n}; the i^th request corresponding to an interval of time starting at s(i) ad finishing at f(i). A subset of the requests is compatible if no two of them overlap in time, and the goal is to accept as large a compatible subset as possible. The compatible sets of maximum size will be called optimal.

The basic idea in a greedy algorithm for interval scheduling is to use a simple rule to select a first request i_l. Once a request i_l is accepted, we reject all requests that are not compatible with i_l. We then select the next request i₂ to be accepted, and again reject all requests that are not compatible with i₂. We continue in this fashion until we run out of requests.

Here is the process we go through to find the most optimal ordering:

1. Select the available request that starts earliest –> Not an optimal solution

2. Accept the request that requires the smallest interval of time, or the request for which f(i) - s(i) is as small as possible –> Not an optimal solution, but somewhat better than 1.

3. For each request, count the number of other requests that are not compatible, and accept the request that has the fewest number of non compatible requests –> Solution might be optimal

4. Accept first the request that finishes first, or the request i for which f(i) is as small as possible –> This leads to an optimal solution. The general algorithm is shown below:

Initially let R be the set of all requests, and let A be empty
While R is not yet empty
    Choose a request i ∈ R that has the smallest finishing time
    Add request i to A
    Delete all requests from R that are not compatible with request i
EndWhile
Return the set A as the set of accepted requests

For the above algorithm we can prove optimality by proving |A| = |O| where A is a compatible set of requests and O is an optimal set of intervals. This shows that A contains the same number of intervals as O and hence is also an optimal solution.

Theorem 4.3 The greedy algorithm returns a optimal set A.

Implementation and Running Time

We can make our algorithm run in time O(n log n) as follows:

• Begin by sorting the n requests in order of finishing time and labeling them in this order; that is, we will assume that f(i) < f(j) when i < j. This takes time O(n log n).
• In an additional O(n) time, we construct an array S[1… n] with the property that S[i] contains the value s(i). We now select requests by processing the intervals in order of increasing f(i). We always select the first interval; we then iterate through the intervals in order until reaching the first interval j for which s(j) > f(1); we then select this one as well.
• So we implement the greedy algorithm analyzed above in one pass through the intervals, spending constant time per interval. Thus this part of the algorithm takes time O(n).

The Interval Scheduling Problem we considered here is a quite simple scheduling problem. There are further complications that could arise in practical settings such as:

• We assumed that all requests were known to the scheduling algorithm when it was choosing the compatible schedule, but online algorithms must make decisions as time proceeds, without knowledge of future input.
• Our goal was to maximize the number of satisfied requests, there could exist a situation in which each request has a different value or weight to us (one thing was more important to have than another).

The Problem A related problem arises if we have many identical resources available and we wish to schedule all the requests’ using as few resources as possible. This is called the Interval Partitioning Problem because the goal here is to partition all intervals across multiple resources. We will now design a simple greedy algorithm that schedules all intervals using a number of resources equal to the depth. This immediately implies the optimality of the algorithm.

Designing the Algorithm Let d be the depth of the set of intervals. We show how to assign a label to each interval, where the labels come from the set of numbers {1, 2 ….. d}, and the assignment has the property that overlapping intervals are labeled with different numbers. This gives the desired solution, since we can interpret each number as the name of a resource, and the label of each interval as the name of the resource to which it is assigned. The algorithm we use for this (shown below) is a simple one-pass greedy strategy that orders intervals by their starting time.

Sort the intervals by their start times, breaking ties arbitrarily
Let I<sub>1</sub>, I<sub>2</sub> ..... I<sub>n</sub> denote the intervals in this order
For j = 1, 2, 3, ..., n
    For each interval Ii that precedes Ii in sorted order and overlaps it
        Exclude the label of I<sub>j</sub> from consideration for I<sub>j</sub>
    Endfor
    If there is any label from {1, 2, ..., d} that has not been excluded then
        Assign a nonexcluded label to I<sub>j</sub>
    Else
        Leave I<sub>j</sub> unlabeled
    Endif
Endfor

Analyzing the Algorithm If we use the greedy algorithm above, every interval will be assigned a label, and no two overlapping intervals will receive the same label. If you have d labels at your disposal, then as you sweep through the intervals from left to right, assigning an available label to each interval you encounter, you can never reach a point where all the labels are currently in use. Since our algorithm is using d labels, we conclude that it is, in fact, always using the minimum possible number of labels.

Theorem 4.6 The greedy algorithm above schedules every interval on a resource, using a number of resources equal to the depth of the set of intervals. This is the optimal number of resources needed.

I found that there was too much information in this section and it would have been easier to read if the authors would do less explaining and more listing of steps. The excess information made the section hard to read and there doesn't need to be so much explaining for the introduction to a new subject. I would give this section a 5/10 for readability. I think maybe another simple example or two of where a greedy algorithm would be the best solution could have been helpful.

Theorem 4.7 There is an optimal schedule with no idle time.

Theorem 4.8 All schedules with no inversions and no idle time have the same maximum lateness.

Theorem 4.9 There is an optimal schedule that has no inversions and no idle time.

Theorem 4.10 The schedule A produced by the greedy algorithm has optimal maximum lateness L.

Extensions

Dijkstra’s Algorithm (G, //l//)
Let S be the set of explored nodes
    For each u ∈ S, we store a distance d(u)
Initially S = {s} and d(s) = 0
While S ≠ V
    Select a node v ∉ S with at least one edge from S for which
        d’(v) = min <sub>e = (u,v):u∈s</sub> d(u) + //l//<sub>e</sub> is as small as possible
    Add v to S and define d(v) = d’(v)
EndWhile

Theorem 4.14 Consider the set S at any point in the algorithm’s execution. For each u ∈ S, the path P_u is a shortest s-u path.

Implementation and Running Time

Theorem 4.15 Using a priority queue, Dijkstra’s Algorithm can be implemented on a graph with n nodes and m edges to run in O(m) time, plus the time for n ExtractMin and m ChangeKey operations.