You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
We consider scheduling of colored packets with transition costs which form a general metric space. We design a @math competitive algorithm. Our main result is a hardness result of @math which matches the competitive ratio of the algorithm for each metric space separately. In particular, we improve the hardness result of Azar at el. 2009 for uniform metric spaces. We also extend our result to weighted directed graphs which obey the triangular inequality and show a @math competitive algorithm and a nearly-matching hardness result. In proving our hardness results we use some interesting non-standard embedding.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: We study the following online preemptive scheduling problem: given a set of jobs with release times, deadlines, processing times and weights, schedule them so as to maximize the total value obtained. Unlike traditional scheduling problems, partially completed jobs can get partial values proportional to their amounts processed. Recently gave improved lower and upper bounds (1.236, 1.8) on the competitive ratio for this problem, the upper bound being achieved by using timesharing to simulate two equal-speed processors. In this paper we (1) give a new algorithm MIXED-k with competitive ratio 1 (1 − (k (k + 1)) k ) which approaches e (e−1) ≈ 1.582 when k →∞ , by using timesharing to simulate k equal-speed processors; (2) give an equivalent but much more practical algorithm MIX, which is e (e − 1)-competitive (independent of k), by timesharing the processor with different speeds (depending on the job weights), and use its interesting properties to devise an efficient implementation; (3) improve the lower bound to 1.25 by showing an identical lower bound for randomized algorithms; and (4) prove a lower bound of 1.618 on the competitive ratio when timesharing is not allowed, thus answering an open problem raised by Chang and Yap, showing that timesharing provably helps in giving better algorithms for this problem.

[2]: We study an online unit-job scheduling problem arising in buffer management. Each job is specified by its release time, deadline, and a nonnegative weight. Due to overloading conditions, some jobs have to be dropped. The goal is to maximize the total weight of scheduled jobs. We present several competitive online algorithms for various versions of unit-job scheduling, as well as some lower bounds on the competitive ratios. We first give a randomized algorithm RMix with competitive ratio of e (e-1) 1.582. This is the first algorithm for this problem with competitive ratio smaller than 2. Then we consider s-bounded instances, where the span of each job (deadline minus release time) is at most s. We give a 1.25-competitive randomized algorithm for 2-bounded instances, matching the known lower bound. We also give a deterministic algorithm Edf"@a, whose competitive ratio on s-bounded instances is 2-2 s+o(1 s). For 3-bounded instances its ratio is @f 1.618, matching the known lower bound. In s-uniform instances, the span of each job is exactly s. We show that no randomized algorithm can be better than 1.25-competitive on s-uniform instances, if the span s is unbounded. For s=2, our proof gives a lower bound of 4-22 1.172. Also, in the 2-uniform case, we prove a lower bound of 2 1.414 for deterministic memoryless algorithms, matching a known upper bound. Finally, we investigate the multiprocessor case and give a 1 (1-(mm+1)^m)-competitive algorithm for m processors. We also show improved lower bounds for the general and s-uniform cases.

[3]: 

[4]: 

[5]: 

[6]: 

[7]: 

[8]: 

[9]: As the Internet becomes more mature, there is a realization that improving the performance of routers has the potential to substantially improve Internet performance in general. Currently, most routers forward packets in a First-In-First-Out (FIFO) order. However, the diversity of applications supported by modern IP-based networks has resulted in unpredictable packet flows, and heterogeneous network traffic. Thus, it is becoming more reasonable to consider differentiating between different types of packets, and perhaps to consider allowing packets to specify a deadline by which it must be processed. These issues have made buffer management at routers a critical issue in providing effective quality of service to the various applications that use the network. In this paper, we study an online problem in which each packet is described by its discrete arrival time, non-negative weight and discrete deadline; arriving packets are buffered for delivery and all packets have the same processing time. The packets arrive online, and our objective is to maximize the sum of weights of those packets that are sent by their deadlines. We describe an online deterministic algorithm with a competitive ratio of 1.854, improving the best previous known competitive ratio of 1.939 ( STACS 2004). The algorithmic framework we use has several interesting features. First, we do not use a potential function. Instead, after each step we modify the adversary's buffer. Second, we introduce "dummy packets" to facilitate the decision making.

[10]: An important issue in IP-based QoS networks is the effective management of packets at the router level. Specifically, if the arriving packets cannot all be stored in a buffer, or if the packets have deadlines by which they must be delivered, the router needs to identify the packets that should be dropped. In recent work, [6] propose a model, called buffer management with bounded delay, which can be thought of as an online scheduling problem on a single machine: packets arrive at a network switch and are stored in a buffer of size B. Each packet has a positive weight and a deadline, with the weight representing the value of transmitting the packet by its deadline. At each integer time step, exactly one packet can be transmitted, and the objective is to maximize the total weight of the transmitted packets. If B = ∞, this is the online version of the scheduling problem 1| p j = 1, r j , d j |Σ w j U j . (We assume that r j and d j are integers.)

[11]: We consider packet scheduling in a network providing differentiated services, where each packet is assigned a value. We study various queueing models for supporting QoS (Quality of Service). In the nonpreemptive model, packets accepted to the queue will be transmitted eventually and cannot be dropped. The FIFO preemptive model allows packets accepted to the queue to be preempted (dropped) prior to their departure, while ensuring that transmitted packets are sent in the order of arrival. In the bounded delay model, packets must be transmitted before a certain deadline, otherwise it is lost (while transmission ordering is allowed to be arbitrary). In all models the goal of the buffer policy is to maximize the total value of the accepted packets.Let α be the ratio between the maximal and minimal value. For the non-preemptive model we derive a Θ(log &alpha) competitive ratio, both exhibiting a buffer policy and a general lower bound. For the interesting case of two distinct values, we give an 2α--1 α competitive buffer policy, which exactly matches the lower bound. We also analyze a RED-like policy and derive its competitive ratio, which is approximately 2α--0.5 α for two values and Θ(log α) for multiple values. In addition we improve the previous known lower and upper bounds of the Fixed Partition and Flexible Partition policies.For the FIFO preemptive model, we improve the general lower bound and show a tight bound for the special case of queue size 2. We prove that the bounded delay model with uniform delay 2 is equivalent to a modified FIFO preemptive model with queue size 2. We then give improved upper and lower bounds on the 2-uniform bounded delay model. We also give lower bound for the 2-variable bounded delay model, which matches the previously known upper bound.
In the bounded delay model [3] we are given a sequence of incoming packets. Each packet is characterized by a value and a deadline. The goal is to find a schedule that maximizes the number of packets that were transmitted before the deadline. The earliest deadline first (EDF) strategy is known to achieve an optimal throughput when all the packets have the same value. For arbitrary values the following results are known. A deterministic competitive algorithm of about @math [7] [9] and a hardness result of @math [8] [1] [11] . A randomized competitive algorithm of @math [2] [6] and a hardness result of @math [1] . For additional papers related to the bounded delay model see [10] [5] [4] .