Journal of Scheduling

, 12:315 | Cite as

A theoretic and practical framework for scheduling in a stochastic environment

  • Julien Bidot
  • Thierry Vidal
  • Philippe Laborie
  • J. Christopher Beck
Article

Abstract

There are many systems and techniques that address stochastic planning and scheduling problems, based on distinct and sometimes opposite approaches, especially in terms of how generation and execution of the plan, or the schedule, are combined, and if and when knowledge about the uncertainties is taken into account. In many real-life problems, it appears that many of these approaches are needed and should be combined, which to our knowledge has never been done. In this paper, we propose a typology that distinguishes between proactive, progressive, and revision approaches. Then, focusing on scheduling and schedule execution, a theoretic model integrating those three approaches is defined. This model serves as a general template to implement a system that will fit specific application needs: we introduce and discuss our experimental prototypes which validate our model in part, and suggest how this framework could be extended to more general planning systems.

Keywords

Scheduling Planning Uncertainty Robustness Combinatorial optimization Constraint programming Simulation Flexibility Stability 

References

  1. Adams, J., Balas, E., & Zawack, D. (1988). The shifting bottleneck procedure for job-shop scheduling. Management Science, 34, 391–401. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aktürk, M. S., & Yildirim, M. B. (1999). A new dominance rule for the total weighted tardiness problem. Production Planning and Control, 10(2), 138–149. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Applegate, D., & Cook, W. (1991). A computational study of the job-shop scheduling problem. ORSA Journal on Computing, 3(2), 149–156. Google Scholar
  4. Baptiste, P., & Le Pape, C. (1996). Edge-finding constraint propagation algorithms for disjunctive and cumulative scheduling. In Proceedings of the fifteenth workshop of the UK planning special interest group, Liverpool, United Kingdom. Google Scholar
  5. Beck, J. C. (1999). Texture measurements as a basis for heuristic commitment techniques in constraint-directed scheduling. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. Google Scholar
  6. Beck, J. C., & Fox, M. S. (2000). Constraint-directed techniques for scheduling with alternative activities. Artificial Intelligence, 121(1–2), 211–250. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beck, J. C., & Wilson, N. (2007). Proactive algorithms for job shop scheduling with probabilistic durations. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 28, 183–232. Google Scholar
  8. Bidot, J., Laborie, P., Beck, J. C., & Vidal, T. (2003). Using simulation for execution monitoring and on-line rescheduling with uncertain durations. In Working notes of the ICAPS’03 workshop on plan execution, Trento, Italy, June 2003. Google Scholar
  9. Bidot, J., Laborie, P., Beck, J. C., & Vidal, T. (2006). Using constraint programming and simulation for execution monitoring and progressive scheduling. In Proceedings of the twelfth IFAC symposium on information control problems in manufacturing (INCOM 2006) (pp. 595–600). Saint-Étienne, France, May 2006. Google Scholar
  10. Bidot, J., Vidal, T., Laborie, P., & Beck, J. C. (2007). A general framework for scheduling in a stochastic environment. In Proceedings of the 20th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI) (pp. 56–61). Hyderabad, India, January 2007. Google Scholar
  11. Billaut, J.-C., Moukrim, A., & Sanlaville, E. (Eds.) (2007). Flexibility and robustness in scheduling. Control Systems, Robotics and Manufacturing. ISTE. Google Scholar
  12. Branke, J., & Mattfeld, D. C. (2002). Anticipatory scheduling for dynamic job-shop problems. In G. Verfaillie (Ed.), Working notes of the AIPS’02 workshop on on-line planning and scheduling (pp. 3–10). Toulouse, France, April 2002. Google Scholar
  13. Bresina, J. L., Dearden, R., Meuleau, N., Ramakrishnan, S., Smith, D. E., & Washington, R. (2002). Planning under continuous time and resource uncertainty: A challenge for AI. In Proceedings of the 18th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence (UAI) (pp. 77–84). Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, August 2002. Google Scholar
  14. Chien, S. A., Knight, R., Stechert, A., Sherwood, R., & Rabideau, G. (2000). Using iterative repair to improve the responsiveness of planning and scheduling. In S. A. Chien, S. Kambhampati, & C. A. Knoblock (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth international conference on artificial intelligence planning and scheduling (AIPS). Breckenridge, CO, USA, April 2000. (pp. 300–307). Menlo Park: AAAI Press. Google Scholar
  15. Davenport, A. J., Gefflot, C., & Beck, J. C. (2001). Slack-based techniques for building robust schedules. In Proceedings of the sixth European conference on planning (ECP). Toledo, Spain, September 2001. Google Scholar
  16. Drummond, M., Bresina, J. L., & Swanson, K. (1994). Just-In-Case scheduling. In Proceedings of the 12th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI) (pp. 1098–1104). Seattle, WA, USA, July 1994. Google Scholar
  17. Dubois, D., Fargier, H., & Prade, H. (1993). The use of fuzzy constraints in job-shop scheduling. In Working notes of the IJCAI’93 workshop on knowledge-based production planning, scheduling, and control (pp. 101–112). Chambéry, France, August 1993. Google Scholar
  18. Erschler, J. (1976). Analyse sous contraintes et aide à la décision pour certains problèmes d’ordonnancement. Ph.D. dissertation, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France. Google Scholar
  19. Fargier, H., Lang, J., & Schiex, T. (1996). Mixed constraint satisfaction: A framework for decision problems under incomplete knowledge. In Proceedings of the 13th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI) (pp. 175–180). Portland, OR, USA, August 1996. Google Scholar
  20. Gao, H. (1995). Building robust schedules using temporal protection—an empirical study of constraint-based scheduling under machine failure uncertainty. Master’s thesis, Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. Google Scholar
  21. Geffner, H. (1998). Modeling intelligent behaviour: The Markov decision process approach. In H. Coelho (Ed.), Lecture notes in AI : Vol. 1484. Proceedings of iberamia 98 (pp. 1–12). New York: Springer. Invited talk. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hagstrom, J. N. (1988). Computational complexity of PERT problems. Networks, 18, 139–147. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herroelen, W. S., & Leus, R. (2005). Project scheduling under uncertainty: Survey and research potentials. European Journal of Operational Research, 165(2), 289–306. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hildum, D. W. (1994). Flexibility in a knowledge-based system for solving dynamic resource-constrained scheduling problems. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Computer Science, University of Massachusetts Amherst, September 1994. Google Scholar
  25. ILOG S. A. (2002). ILOG scheduler 5.3: reference manual and user’s manual. Google Scholar
  26. Kushmerick, N., Hanks, S., & Weld, D. S. (1995). An algorithm for probabilistic planning. Artificial Intelligence, 76(1–2), 239–286. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. La, H. T. (2005). Utilisation d’ordres partiels pour la caractérisation de solutions robustes en ordonnancement. Ph.D. dissertation, Institut National des Sciences Appliquées de Toulouse, Toulouse, France, January 2005. Google Scholar
  28. Lawrence, S. R. (1984). Resource-constrained project scheduling: an experimental investigation of heuristic scheduling techniques (supplement). Ph.D. dissertation, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Google Scholar
  29. Lemai, S., & Ingrand, F. F. (2004). Interleaving temporal planning and execution in robotics domains. In Proceedings of the 19th national conference on artificial intelligence (AAAI). San Jose, CA, USA, July 2004. Google Scholar
  30. Morris, P. H., Muscettola, N., & Vidal, T. (2001). Dynamic control of plans with temporal uncertainty. In Proceedings of the 17th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI) (pp. 494–502). Seattle, WA, USA, August 2001. Google Scholar
  31. Morton, T. E., & Pentico, D. W. (1993). Heuristic scheduling systems with applications to production systems and project management. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  32. Muscettola, N. (1994). HSTS: Integrating planning and scheduling. In M. Zweben & M. S. Fox (Eds.), Intelligent scheduling (pp. 169–212). Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo. Google Scholar
  33. Muscettola, N. (2002). Computing the envelope for stepwise-constant resource allocations. In Proceedings of the eighth international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming (CP) (pp. 139–154). Cornell University, New York, USA, September 2002. Google Scholar
  34. Nilsson, N. J. (1980). Principles of artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo. Google Scholar
  35. Nuijten, W. P. M. (1994). Time- and resource-constrained scheduling. A constraint-satisfaction approach. Ph.D. dissertation, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven, Netherlands. Google Scholar
  36. Policella, N., Oddi, A., Smith, S. F., & Cesta, A. (2004). Generating robust schedules through chaining. In Proceedings of the tenth international conference on principles and practice of constraint programming (CP) (pp. 496–511). Toronto, Canada, September 2004. Google Scholar
  37. Puterman, M. L. (1994). Markov decision processes: discrete stochastic dynamic programming. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  38. Sabuncuoglu, I., & Bayiz, M. (2000). Analysis of reactive scheduling problems in a job-shop environment. European Journal of Operational Research, 126, 567–586. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sadeh, N. M. (1994). Micro-opportunistic scheduling: The Micro-Boss factory scheduler. In M. Zweben & M. S. Fox (Eds.), Intelligent scheduling (pp. 99–135). Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo. Chap. 4. Google Scholar
  40. Sadeh, N. M., Otsuka, S., & Schnelbach, R. (1993). Predictive and reactive scheduling with the Micro-Boss production scheduling and control system. In Working notes of the IJCAI’93 workshop on knowledge-based production planning, scheduling, and control (pp. 293–306). Chambéry, France, August 1993. Google Scholar
  41. El Sakkout, H., & Wallace, M. (2000). Probe backtrack search for minimal perturbation in dynamic scheduling. Constraints, 5, 359–388. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shafaei, R., & Brunn, P. (1999a). Workshop scheduling using practical (inaccurate) data. Part 1: The performance of heuristic scheduling rules in a dynamic job-shop environment using a rolling time horizon approach. International Journal of Production Research, 37(17), 3913–3925. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shafaei, R., & Brunn, P. (1999b). Workshop scheduling using practical (inaccurate) data. Part 2: An investigation of the robustness of scheduling rules in a dynamic and stochastic environment. International Journal of Production Research, 37(18), 4105–4117. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith, S. F. (1994). OPIS: A methodology and architecture for reactive scheduling. In M. Zweben & M. S. Fox (Eds.), Intelligent scheduling (pp. 29–66). Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo. Google Scholar
  45. Smith, D. E., Frank, J., & Jónsson, A. K. (2000). Bridging the gap between planning and scheduling. Knowledge Engineering Review, 15(1), 61–94. Google Scholar
  46. Tsamardinos, I., Vidal, T., & Pollack, M. E. (2003). CTP: A new constraint-based formalism for conditional, temporal planning. Constraints, 8(4), 365–388. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Vidal, T., Ghallab, M., & Alami, R. (1996). Incremental mission allocation to a large team of robots. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA’96) (Vol. 2, pp. 1620–1625). Minneapolis, MN, USA. Google Scholar
  48. Wang, X., & Chien, S. A. (1997). Replanning using hierarchical task network and operator-based planning. In Proceedings of the fourth European conference on planning (ECP) (pp. 427–439). Toulouse, France, September 1997. Google Scholar
  49. Wu, S. D., Byeon, E.-S., & Storer, R. H. (1999). A graph-theoretic decomposition of the job-shop scheduling problem to achieve scheduling robustness. Operations Research, 47, 113–123. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julien Bidot
    • 1
  • Thierry Vidal
    • 2
  • Philippe Laborie
    • 3
  • J. Christopher Beck
    • 4
  1. 1.Universität UlmUlmGermany
  2. 2.IRISA-INRIARennesFrance
  3. 3.ILOG S.A.GentillyFrance
  4. 4.University of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations