Validating scheduling approaches against executional uncertainty
This paper introduces a general methodology to perform a comparative evaluation of different approaches to the problem of scheduling with uncertainty. Different proactive (off-line) and reactive (on-line) scheduling policies are evaluated by simulating the execution of a number of baseline schedules under uncertain environmental conditions, and observing the solution behaviors as such schedules get stressed by exogenous events. The analysis aims at assessing the impact of both proactive and reactive scheduling efforts on the robustness of the baseline solutions, against measurable disrupting factors, through reproducible experiments. As the results show, this dynamic approach reveals extremely useful to unveil some subtle aspects, which would have remained undetected through static metric evaluations.
KeywordsScheduling with uncertainty Reactive scheduling Proactive scheduling Schedule execution
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Aloulou, M. A., & Portmann, M. C. (2003). An efficient proactive reactive scheduling approach to hedge against shop floor disturbances. In Proceedings of 1st Multidisciplinary International Conference on Scheduling: Theory and Applications (MISTA 2003) (pp. 337–362). The University of Nottingham Press.Google Scholar
- Cesta, A., Oddi, A., & Smith, S. F. (1998). Profile Based Algorithms to solve multiple capacitated metric scheduling problems. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems, AIPS-98 (pp. 214–223). AAAI Press.Google Scholar
- Cesta, A., Oddi, A., & Smith, S. F. (1999). An iterative sampling procedure for resource constrained project scheduling with time windows. In Proceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (pp. 1022–1029). Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
- Ginsberg, M. L., Parkes, A. J., & Roy, A. (1998). Supermodels and robustness. In, Proceedings of the 15th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI-98 (pp. 334–339). AAAI Press.Google Scholar
- Kolisch R., Schwindt C., Sprecher A. (1998) Benchmark instances for project scheduling problems. In: Weglarz J. (eds) Project Scheduling—Recent Models, Algorithms and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, pp 197–212Google Scholar
- Policella N., Rasconi R. (2005) Designing a testset generator for reactive scheduling. Intelligenza Artificiale 2(3): 29–36Google Scholar
- Policella, N., Oddi, A., Smith, S. F., & Cesta, A. (2004a). Generating robust partial order schedules. In M. Wallace (Ed.), Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, 10th International Conference, CP 2004, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 3258, pp. 496–511). Springer.Google Scholar
- Policella, N., Smith, S. F., Cesta, A., & Oddi, A. (2004b). Generating robust schedules through temporal flexibility. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Automated Planning & Scheduling, ICAPS’04 (pp. 209–218). AAAI.Google Scholar
- Roy B., Sussman B. (1964) Les problemes d’ordonnancement avec contraintes disjonctives, note DS n. 9 bis. SEMA, ParisGoogle Scholar
- Schwindt, C. (1998). A Branch and Bound Algorithm for the Resource-Constrained Project Duration Problem Subject to Temporal Constraints. Tech. Rep. WIOR-544, Institut für Wirtschaftstheorie und Operations Research, Universität Karlsruhe.Google Scholar
- Sevaux, M., & Sörensen, K. (2002). A genetic algorithm for robust schedules in a just-in-time environment. Tech. Rep. LAMIH/SP-2003-1, University of Valenciennes.Google Scholar
- Smith, S. F. (1994). OPIS: A Methodology and Architecture for Reactive Scheduling. In M. Fox, M. Zweben (Eds.), Intelligent Scheduling. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar