Schedule Robustness Through Broader Solve and Robustify Search for Partial Order Schedules

  • Nicola Policella
  • Amedeo Cesta
  • Angelo Oddi
  • Stephen F. Smith
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3673)

Abstract

In previous work, we have defined a two-step procedure called Solve-and-Robustify for generating flexible, partial order schedules. This partitioned problem solving approach — first find a viable solution and then generalize it to enhance robustness properties — has been shown to provide an effective basis for generating flexible, robust schedules while simultaneously achieving good quality with respect to optimization objectives. This paper extends prior analysis of this paradigm, by investigating the effects of using different start solutions as a baseline to generate partial order schedules. Two approaches are compared: the first constructs partial order schedules from a single fixed-time schedule, obtained by first performing an extended makespan optimization search phase; the second considers the search for fixed-time schedules and flexible schedules in a more integrated fashion, and constructs partial order schedules from a number of different fixed-time starting solutions. The paper experimentally shows how the characteristics of the fixed-time solutions may lower the robustness of the final partial order schedules and discusses the reasons for such behavior.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Policella, N., Smith, S.F., Cesta, A., Oddi, A.: Generating Robust Schedules through Temporal Flexibility. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Automated Planning & Scheduling, ICAPS 2004, pp. 209–218. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2004)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Policella, N., Oddi, A., Smith, S.F., Cesta, A.: Generating Robust Partial Order Schedules. In: Wallace, M. (ed.) CP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3258, pp. 496–511. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Artigues, C., Roubellat, F.: A polynomial activity insertion algorithm in a multi-resource schedule with cumulative constraints and multiple modes. European Journal of Operational Research 127, 297–316 (2000)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leus, R., Herroelen, W.: Stability and Resource Allocation in Project Planning. IIE Transactions 36, 667–682 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Policella, N.: Scheduling with Uncertainty: a Proactive Approach using Partial Order Schedules. PhD thesis, University of Rome La Sapienza (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bartusch, M., Mohring, R.H., Radermacher, F.J.: Scheduling project networks with resource constraints and time windows. Annals of Operations Research 16, 201–240 (1988)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aloulou, M.A., Portmann, M.C.: 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 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cesta, A., Oddi, A., Smith, S.F.: Profile Based Algorithms to Solve Multiple Capacitated Metric Scheduling Problems. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning Systems, AIPS 1998, pp. 214–223. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cesta, A., Oddi, A., Smith, S.F.: A Constraint-based method for Project Scheduling with Time Windows. Journal of Heuristics 8, 109–136 (2002)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dorndorf, U., Pesch, E., Phan-Huy, T.: A time-oriented branch-and-bound algorithm for resource-constrained project scheduling with generalised precedence constraints. Management Science 46, 1365–1384 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smith, T.B., Pyle, J.M.: An effective algorithm for project scheduling with arbitrary temporal constraints. In: Proceedings of the 19th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2004, pp. 544–549 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cicirello, V.A., Smith, S.F.: Heuristic selection for stochastic search optimization: Modeling solution quality by extreme value theory. In: Wallace, M. (ed.) CP 2004. LNCS, vol. 3258, pp. 197–211. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oddi, A., Smith, S.F.: Stochastic Procedures for Generating Feasible Schedules. In: Proceedings 14th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 1997, pp. 308–314. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Resende, M., Ribeiro, C.: Greedy Randomized Adaptive Search Procedures. In: Glover, F., Kochenberger, G. (eds.) Handbook of Metaheuristics, pp. 219–249. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Policella, N., Wang, X., Smith, S., Oddi, A.: Exploiting Temporal Flexibility to Obtain High Quality Schedules. In: Proceedings of the 20th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2005. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicola Policella
    • 1
  • Amedeo Cesta
    • 1
  • Angelo Oddi
    • 1
  • Stephen F. Smith
    • 2
  1. 1.ISTC-CNR, Institute for Cognitive Science and TechnologyItalian National Research CouncilRomeItaly
  2. 2.The Robotics InstituteCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations