Constraints

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 100–123 | Cite as

A global constraint for total weighted completion time for unary resources

Article

Abstract

We introduce a novel global constraint for the total weighted completion time of activities on a single unary capacity resource. For propagating the constraint, we propose an O(n4) algorithm which makes use of the preemptive mean busy time relaxation of the scheduling problem. The solution to this problem is used to test if an activity can start at each start time in its domain in solutions that respect the upper bound on the cost of the schedule. Empirical results show that the proposed global constraint significantly improves the performance of constraint-based approaches to single-machine scheduling for minimizing the total weighted completion time. We then apply the constraint to the multi-machine job shop scheduling problem with total weighted completion time. Our experiments show an order of magnitude reduction in search effort over the standard weighted-sum constraint and demonstrate that the way in which the job weights are associated with activities is important for performance.

Keywords

Scheduling Constraint propagation Total weighted completion time 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Afrati, F., Bampis, E., Chekuri, C., Karger, D., Kenyon, C., Khanna, S., et al. (1999). Approximation schemes for minimizing average weighted completion time with release dates. In Proc. of the 40th IEEE symposium on foundations of computer science (pp. 32–44).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akkan, C., & Karabatı, S. (2004). The two-machine flowshop total completion time problem: Improved lower bounds and a branch-and-bound algorithm. European Journal of Operational Research, 159, 420–429.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baptiste, Ph., Carlier, J., & Jouglet, A. (2004). A branch-and-bound procedure to minimize total tardiness on one machine with arbitrary release dates. European Journal of Operational Research, 158, 595–608.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baptiste, Ph., & Le Pape, C. (2005). Scheduling a single machine to minimize a regular objective function under setup constraints. Discrete Optimization, 2, 83–99.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baptiste, Ph., Peridy, L., & Pinson, E. (2003). A branch and bound to minimize the number of late jobs on a single machine with release time constraints. European Journal of Operational Research, 144(1), 1–11.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beck, J. C., & Refalo, P. (2003). A hybrid approach to scheduling with earliness and tardiness costs. Annals of Operations Research, 118, 49–71.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Belouadah, H., Posner, M. E., & Potts, C. N. (1992). Scheduling with release dates on a single machine to minimize total weighted completion time. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 36, 213–231.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Belouadah, H., & Potts, C. N. (1994). Scheduling identical parallel machines to minimize total weighted completion time. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 48, 201–218.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen, B., Potts, C. N., & Woeginger, G. J. (1998). A review of machine scheduling: Complexity, algorithms and approximation. In Handbook of combinatorial optimization (Vol. 3). Deventer: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dechter, R., Meiri, I., & Pearl, J. (1991). Temporal constraint networks. Artificial Intelligence, 49, 61–95.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Della Croce, F., Ghirardi, M., & Tadei, R. (2002). An improved branch-and-bound algorithm for the two machine total completion time flow shop problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 139, 293–301.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Demassey, S., Pesant, G., & Rousseau, L.-M. (2006). A cost-regular based hybrid column generation approach. Constraints, 11(4), 315–333.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Drexl, A., & Kimms, A. (1997). Lot-sizing and scheduling—survey and extensions. European Journal of Operational Research, 99, 221–235.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dyer, M., & Wolsey, L. A. (1990). Formulating the single machine sequencing problem with release dates as mixed integer program. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 26, 255–270.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Focacci, F., Lodi, A., & Milano, M. (2002). Embedding relaxations in global constraints for solving TSP and TSPTW. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 34(4), 291–311.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Focacci, F., Lodi, A., & Milano, M. (2002). Optimization-oriented global constraints. Constraints, 7(3–4), 351–365.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garey, M. R., & Johnson, D. S. (1979). Computers and intractability: A guide to the theory of NP-completeness. New York: W.H. Freeman.MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goemans, M. X., Queyranne, M., Schulz, A. S., Skutella, M., & Wang, Y. (2002). Single machine scheduling with release dates. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 15(2), 165–192.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gomes, C. P., Fernández, C., Selman, B., & Bessière, C. (2005). Statistical regimes across constrainedness regions. Constraints, 10(4), 317–337.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jouglet, A., Baptiste, P., & Carlier, J. (2004). Branch-and-bound algorithms for total weighted tardiness. In Handbook of scheduling: Algorithms, models, and performance analysis, chapter 13. London: Chapman & Hall / CRC.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kovács, A., & Beck, J. C. (2007). Single-machine scheduling with tool changes: A constraint-based approach. In PlanSIG 2007, the 26th workshop of the UK planning and scheduling special interest group (pp. 71–78).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kovács, A., & Beck, J. C. (2008). A global constraint for total weighted completion time for cumulative resources. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 21(5), 691–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kéri, A., & Kis, T. (2005). Primal-dual combined with constraint propagation for solving rcpspwet. In Proc. of the 2nd multidisciplinary international conference on scheduling: Theory and applications (pp. 748–751).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Le Pape, C., Couronné, P., Vergamini, D., & Gosselin, V. (1994). Time-versus-capacity compromises in project scheduling. In Proceedings of the thirteenth workshop of the UK planning special interest group.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Luby, M., Sinclair, A., & Zuckerman, D. (1993). Optimal speedup of Las Vegas algorithms. Information Processing Letters, 47, 173–180.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nessah, R., Yalaoui, F., & Chu, C. (2009). A branch-and-bound algorithm to minimize total weighted completion time on identical parallel machines with job release dates. Computers and Operations Research, 35(4), 1176–1190.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pan, Y. (2007). Test instances for the dynamic single-machine sequencing problem to minimize total weighted completion time. Available at www.cs.wisc.edu/126yunpeng/test/sm/dwct/instances.htm.
  28. 28.
    Pan, Y., & Shi, L. (2008). New hybrid optimization algorithms for machine scheduling problems. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 5(2), 337–348.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Régin, J.-C. (1999). Arc consistency for global cardinality constraints with costs. In Proceedings of principles and practice of constraint programming (LNCS 1713) (pp. 390–404).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Régin, J.-C. (2003). Global constraints and filtering algorithms. In M. Milano (Ed.), Constraint and integer programming: Toward a unified methodology (pp. 89–135). Deventer: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Régin, J.-C., & Rueher, M. (2005). Inequality-sum: A global constraint capturing the objective function. RAIRO Operations Research, 39, 123–139.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Scheduler (2002). ILOG Scheduler 6.1 reference manual. ILOG, S.A.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schulz, A. S. (1996). Scheduling to minimize total weighted completion time: Performance guarantees of lp-based heuristics and lower bounds. In Proc. of the 5th int. conf. on integer programming and combinatorial optimization (pp. 301–315).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sellmann, M. (2002). An arc consistency algorithm for the minimum weight all different constraint. In Proceedings of principles and practice of constraint programming (LNCS 2470) (pp. 744–749).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    van den Akker, J. M., Hurkens, C. A. J, & Savelsberg, M. W. P. (2000). Time-indexed formulations for machine scheduling problems: Column generation. INFORMS Journal on Computing, 12, 111–124.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Watson, J. P., Barbulescu, L., Howe, A. E., & Whitley, L. D. (1999). Algorithms performance and problem structure for flow-shop scheduling. In Proceedings of the sixteenth national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI-99) (pp. 688–695).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer and Automation Research InstituteHungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical and Industrial EngineeringUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations