Soft Computing

, Volume 18, Issue 12, pp 2385–2396 | Cite as

Fitness distance analysis for parallel genetic algorithm in the test task scheduling problem

Methodologies and Application
First Online:

Abstract

The test task scheduling problem (TTSP) has attracted increasing attention due to the wide range of automatic test systems applications, despite the fact that it is an NP-complete problem. The main feature of TTSP is the close interactions between task sequence and the scheme choice. Based on this point, the parallel implantation of genetic algorithm, called Parallel Genetic Algorithm (PGA), is proposed to determine the optimal solutions. Two branches—the tasks sequence and scheme choice run the classic genetic algorithm independently and they balance each other due to their interaction in the given problem. To match the frame of the PGA, a vector group encoding method is provided. In addition, the fitness distance coefficient (FDC) is first applied as the measurable step of landscape to analyze TTSP and guide the design of PGA when solving the TTSP. The FDC is the director of the search space of the TTSP, and the search space determinates the performance of PGA. The FDC analysis shows that the TTSP owes a large number of local optima. Strong space search ability is needed to solve TTSP better. To make PGA more suitable to solve TTSP, three crossover and four selection operations are adopted to find the best combination. The experiments show that due to the characteristic of TTSP and the randomness of the algorithm, the PGA has a low probability for optimizing the TTSP, but PGA with Nabel crossover and stochastic tournament selection performs best. The assumptions of FDC are consistent with the success rate of PGA when solving the TTSP.

Keywords

Test task scheduling problem Parallel genetic algorithm Fitness distance coefficient Genetic operators 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The information provided in this paper is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not reflect the community’s opinion. The community is not responsible for any use of data appearing in this publication. This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 61101153 and the National 863 Hi-Tech R and D Plan under Grant 2011AA110101.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Acampora G, Gaeta M, Loia V (2011a) Combining multi-agent paradigm and memetic computing for personalized and adaptive learning experiences. Comput Intell 27(2):141–165MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acampora G, Gaeta M, Loia V (2011b) Hierarchical optimization of personalized experiences for e-Learning systems through evolutionary models. Neural Comput Appl 20(5):641–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Acampora G, Cadenas JM, Loia V, Balleste EM (2011c) Achieving memetic adaptability by Means of agent-based machine learning. IEEE Trans Ind Inform 7(4):557–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bac FQ, Perov VL (1993) New evolutionary genetic algorithms for NP-complete combinatorial optimization problems. Biol Cybern 69(2):229–234MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brindle A (1981) Genetic algorithms for function optimization. Dissertation, the University of AlbertaGoogle Scholar
  6. Caraffini F, Neri F, Iacca G, Mol A (2013) Parallel memetic structures. Inform Sci 227:60–82MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Czogall J, Fink A (2011) Fitness landscape analysis for the no-wait flow-shop scheduling problem. J Heuristics 18(1):25–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Defersha FM, Chen M (2010) A parallel genetic algorithm for a flexible job-shop scheduling problem with sequence dependent setups. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 49(1–4):263–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gao JQ, He GX, Wang YS (2009) A new parallel genetic algorithm for solving multi-objective scheduling problems subjected to special process constraint. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 43(1):151–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gibbs MS, Maier HR, Dandy GC (2011) Relationship between problem characteristics and the optimal number of genetic algorithm generations. Eng Optim 43(4):349–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoo HH, Stützle T (2004) Stochastic local search: foundations and applications. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones T (1995) Evolutionary algorithm, fitness landscapes and search. Dissertation, the University of New Mexico AlbuquerqueGoogle Scholar
  13. Kubiak M (2007) Distance measures and fitness-distance analysis for the capacitated vehicle routing problem. Oper Res Comput Sci 39:345–364Google Scholar
  14. Lu H, Chen X, Liu J (2012) Parallel test task scheduling with constraints based on hybrid particle swarm optimization and tabu search. Chinese J Electron 21(4):615–618Google Scholar
  15. Lu H, Niu RY, Liu J, Zhu Z (2013) A chaotic non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm for the multi-objective automatic test task scheduling problem. Appl Soft Comput 31(5):2790–2802 Google Scholar
  16. Mattfeld DC, Bierwirth C, Kopfer H (1999) A search space analysis of the Job Shop Scheduling Problem. Ann Oper Res 86:441–453MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Quick RJ, Rayward-Smith VJ, Smith GD (1998) Fitness distance correlation and ridge functions. Lect Notes Comput Sci (LNCS) 1498:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Radulescu A, Nicolescu C, van-Gemund AJC, Jonker PP (2001) CPR: mixed task and data parallel scheduling for distributed systems. In: Proceedings of the 15th international parallel and distributed processing symposium, pp 39–39Google Scholar
  19. Reeves CR (1995) A genetic algorithm for flowshop sequencing. Comput Oper Res 22(1):5–13MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ross WA (2003) The impact of next generation test technology on aviation maintenance. In: Proceeding of IEEE systems readiness technology conference of autotestcon, pp 2–9Google Scholar
  21. Schiavinotto T, Stützle T (2005) The linear ordering problem: instances, search space analysis and algorithms. J Math Model Algorithms 3(4):367–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schiavinotto T, Stützle T (2007) A review of metrics on permutations for search landscape analysis. Comput Oper Res 34(10):3134–3153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schulze J, Fahle T (1999) A parallel algorithm for the vehicle routing problem with time window constraints. Ann Oper Res 86:585–607MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith-Miles K, Lopes L (2012) Measuring instance difficulty for combinatorial optimization problems. Comput Oper Res 39(6):875–889MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sörensen K (2007) Distance measures based on the edit distance for permutation-type representations. J Heuristics 13(1):35–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stützle T, Hoos HH (2000) MAX -MIN Ant System. Future Gener Comp Sy 16(8):889–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tavares J, Pereira FB, Costa E (2008) Multidimensional Knapsack Problem: a fitness landscape analysis. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part B Cybern 38(3):604–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tsai CW, Tseng SP, Chiang MC, Yang CS (2011) A fast parallel genetic algorithm for travelling salesman problem. Lect Notes Comput Sci (LNCS) 6083:241–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Xia R, Xiao MQ, Cheng JJ, Fu XH (2007a) Optimizing the multi-UUT parallel test task scheduling based on multi-objective GASA. In: The 8th international conference on electronic measurement and instruments, pp 839–844Google Scholar
  30. Xia R, Xiao MQ, Cheng JJ (2007b) Parallel TPS design and application based on software architecture, components and patterns. In: IEEE Autotestcon 2007 systems readiness technology conference, pp 234–240Google Scholar
  31. Yu B, Yang ZZ, Sun XS et al (2011) Parallel genetic algorithm in bus route headway optimization. Appl Soft Comput 11(8):5081–5091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zhang L, Wang L, Zheng DZ (2006) An adaptive genetic algorithm with multiple operators for flowshop scheduling. Int J Adv Manuf Tech 27(5–6):580–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhou DX, Qi P, Liu T (2009) An optimizing algorithm for resources allocation in parallel test. In: IEEE international conference on control and automation, pp 1997–2002Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Electronic and Information EngineeringBeihang UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations