  In their seminal paper that initiated the field of algorithmic mechanism
design, \citet{NR99} studied the problem of designing strategyproof mechanisms
for scheduling jobs on unrelated machines aiming to minimize the makespan. They
provided a strategyproof mechanism that achieves an $n$-approximation and they
made the bold conjecture that this is the best approximation achievable by any
deterministic strategyproof scheduling mechanism. After more than two decades
and several efforts, $n$ remains the best known approximation and very recent
work by \citet{CKK21} has been able to prove an $\Omega(\sqrt{n})$
approximation lower bound for all deterministic strategyproof mechanisms. This
strong negative result, however, heavily depends on the fact that the
performance of these mechanisms is evaluated using worst-case analysis. To
overcome such overly pessimistic, and often uninformative, worst-case bounds, a
surge of recent work has focused on the ``learning-augmented framework'', whose
goal is to leverage machine-learned predictions to obtain improved
approximations when these predictions are accurate (consistency), while also
achieving near-optimal worst-case approximations even when the predictions are
arbitrarily wrong (robustness).
  In this work, we study the classic strategic scheduling problem
of~\citet{NR99} using the learning-augmented framework and give a deterministic
polynomial-time strategyproof mechanism that is $6$-consistent and $2n$-robust.
We thus achieve the ``best of both worlds'': an $O(1)$ consistency and an
$O(n)$ robustness that asymptotically matches the best-known approximation. We
then extend this result to provide more general worst-case approximation
guarantees as a function of the prediction error. Finally, we complement our
positive results by showing that any $1$-consistent deterministic strategyproof
mechanism has unbounded robustness.
