Journal of the Operational Research Society

, Volume 58, Issue 12, pp 1574–1585 | Cite as

An estimation of distribution algorithm with intelligent local search for rule-based nurse rostering

Case-Oriented Paper


This paper proposes a new memetic evolutionary algorithm to achieve explicit learning in rule-based nurse rostering, which involves applying a set of heuristic rules for each nurse's assignment. The main framework of the algorithm is an estimation of distribution algorithm, in which an ant-miner methodology improves the individual solutions produced in each generation. Unlike our previous work (where learning is implicit), the learning in the memetic estimation of distribution algorithm is explicit, that is, we are able to identify building blocks directly. The overall approach learns by building a probabilistic model, that is, an estimation of the probability distribution of individual nurse–rule pairs that are used to construct schedules. The local search processor (ie the ant-miner) reinforces nurse–rule pairs that receive higher rewards. A challenging real-world nurse rostering problem is used as the test problem. Computational results show that the proposed approach outperforms most existing approaches. It is suggested that the learning methodologies suggested in this paper may be applied to other scheduling problems where schedules are built systematically according to specific rules.


nurse rostering estimation of distribution algorithm local search ant colony optimization 


  1. Aickelin U (2002). An indirect genetic algorithm for set covering problems. J Opnl Res Soc 51: 1118–1126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aickelin U and Dowsland K (2000). Exploiting problem structure in a genetic algorithm approach to a nurse rostering problem. J Scheduling 3: 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aickelin U and Dowsland K (2004). An indirect genetic algorithm for a nurse scheduling problem. Comput Opns Res 31: 761–778.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aickelin U and White P (2004). Building better nurse scheduling algorithms. Ann Opns Res 128: 159–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bard JF and Purnomo W (2007). A cyclic preference scheduling of nurses using a Lagrangian-based heuristic. J Scheduling 10: (in press).Google Scholar
  6. Beddoe G and Petrovic S (2006). Selecting and weighting features using a genetic algorithm in a case-based reasoning approach to personnel rostering. Eur J Opnl Res 175: 649–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bosman PAN and Thierens D (2000). Expanding from discrete to continuous estimation of distribution algorithms: the IDEA. In: Deb Schoenauer M et al (eds). Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1917. Springer: Berlin, pp 767–776.Google Scholar
  8. Brusco MJ and Jacobs LW (1995). Cost analysis of alternative formulations for personnel scheduling in continuously operating organisations. Eur J Opnl Res 86: 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burke EK, Causmaecker P and Vanden Berghe G (1999). A hybrid tabu search algorithm for the nurse rostering problem. In: Mckay B (ed). Simulated Evolution and Learning, Springer Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 1585. Springer: Berlin, pp 187–194.Google Scholar
  10. Burke EK, Causmaecker P, Vanden Berghe G and Van Landeghem H (2004). The state of the art of nurse rostering. J Scheduling 7: 441–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burke EK, Cowling P, Causmaecker P and Vanden Berghe G (2001). A memetic approach to the nurse rostering problem. Appl Intel 15: 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burke EK, Kendall G, Newall J, Hart E, Ross P and Schulenburg S (2003a). Hyper-heuristics: an emerging direction in modern search technology. In: Glover F and Kochenberger G (eds). Handbook of Meta-Heuristics. Kluwer: Dordrecht, pp. 451–470 (Chapter 16).Google Scholar
  13. Burke EK, Kendall G and Soubeiga E (2003b). A tabu-search hyperheuristic for timetabling and rostering. J Heuristics 9: 451–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burke EK, MacCollum B, Meisols A, Petrovic S and Qu R (2006a). A graph-based hyperheuristic for educational timetabling problems. Eur J Opnl Res (in press).Google Scholar
  15. Burke EK, Petrovic S and Qu R (2006b). Case based heuristic selection for timetabling problems. J Scheduling 9: 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cheang B, Li H, Lim A and Rodrigues B (2003). Nurse rostering problems—a bibliographic survey. Eur J Opnl Res 151: 447–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dorigo M and Stützle T (2004). Ant Colony Optimization. The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  18. Dowsland K and Thompson JM (2000). Solving a nurse scheduling problem with knapsacks, networks and tabu search. J Opnl Res Soc 51: 825–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dowsland K, Soubeiga E and Burke EK (2006). A simulated annealing hyper-heuristic for determining shipper sizes. Eur J Opnl Res (in press).Google Scholar
  20. Easton FF and Mansour N (1999). A distributed genetic algorithm for deterministic and stochastic labor scheduling problems. Eur J Opnl Res 118: 505–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gutjahr WJ and Rauner MS (2007). An ACO algorithm for a dynamic regional nurse-scheduling problem in Austria. Computers Opns Res 34: 642–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ikegami A and Niwa A (2003). A subproblem-centric model and approach to the nurse rostering problem. Math Programming 97: 517–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kawanaka H et al (2001). Genetic algorithm with the constraints for nurse scheduling problem. In: Proceedings of Congress on Evolutionary Computation. IEEE Service Center: New Jersey, pp 1123–1130.Google Scholar
  24. Kendall G and Mohd Hussin N (2005). Tabu search hyper-heuristic approach to the examination timetabling problem at the MARA University of Technology. In: Burke EK and Trick M (eds). Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3616. Springer: Berlin, pp 270–293.Google Scholar
  25. Krasnogor N and Smith J (2005). A tutorial for competent memetic algorithms: model taxonomy, and design issues. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 9: 474–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krasnogor N, Hart W and Smith J (eds) (2004). Recent Advances in Memetic Algorithms and Related Search Technologies. Springer: Berlin, 2004.Google Scholar
  27. Larranaga P (2002). A review on estimation of distribution algorithms. In: Larranaga P and Lozano JA (eds). Estimation of Distribution Algorithm: A New Tool for Evolutionary Computation. Kluwer: Dordrecht, pp. 57–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Larranaga P and Lozano JA (2002). Estimation of Distribution Algorithms. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Li J and Aickelin U (2004). The application of Bayesian optimization and classifier systems in nurse scheduling. In: Yao X et al. (eds). Parallel Problem Solving from Nature. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3242. Springer: Berlin, pp 581–590.Google Scholar
  30. Li J and Kwan RSK (2003). A fuzzy genetic algorithm for driver scheduling. Eur J Opnl Res 147: 334–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Li J and Kwan RSK (2005). A self-adjusting algorithm for driver scheduling. J Heuristics 11: 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Meyer auf'm Hofe H (2001). Solving rostering tasks as constraint optimization. In: Burke EK and Erben W (eds). Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling, Third International Conference, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2079. Springer: Berlin, pp 191–212.Google Scholar
  33. Mühlenbein H and Mahnig T (1999). FDA—A scalable evolutionary algorithm for the optimization of additively decomposed functions. Evol Comput 7: 353–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pearl J (1988). Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: Los Altos, CA.Google Scholar
  35. Pelikan M (2005). Hierarchical Bayesian Optimization Algorithm: Toward a New Generation of Evolutionary Algorithm. Springer: Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pelikan M, Goldberg DE and Lobo FG (2002). A survey of optimization by building and using probabilistic models. Comput Optim Appl 21: 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rattadilok P, Gaw A and Kwan RSK (2005). Distributed choice function hyper-heuristics for timetabling and scheduling. In: Burke EK and Trick M (eds). Practice and Theory of Automated Timetabling, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3616. Springer: Berlin, pp 51–67.Google Scholar
  38. Ross P (2005). Hyper-heuristics. In: Burke EK and Kendall G (eds). Search Methodologies: Introductory Tutorials in Optimization and Decision Support Methodologies. Springer: Berlin (Chapter 16).Google Scholar
  39. Ross P, Marín-Blázquez JG, Schulenburg S and Hart E (2003). Learning a procedure that can solve hard bin-packing problems: a new GA-based approach to hyper-heuristics. In: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO 2003), Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 2724. Springer: Berlin, pp 1295–1306.Google Scholar
  40. Sastry K, Kendall G and Goldberg D (2005). Genetic algorithms. In: Burke EK and Kendall G (eds). Search Methodologies: Introductory Tutorials in Optimisation Decision Support and Search Techniques. Springer: Berlin, pp. 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tien JM and Kamiyama A (1982). On manpower scheduling algorithms. Soc Indust Appl Math 24: 275–287.Google Scholar
  42. Warner M and Prawda J (1972). A mathematical programming model for scheduling nursing personnel in a hospital. Mngt Sci 19: 411–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations