On the Integration of Theoretical Single-Objective Scheduling Results for Multi-objective Problems

  • Christian GrimmeEmail author
  • Markus Kemmerling
  • Joachim Lepping
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 447)


We present a modular and flexible algorithmic framework to enable a fusion of scheduling theory and evolutionary multi-objective combinatorial optimization. For single-objective scheduling problems, that is the optimization of task assignments to sparse resources over time, a variety of optimal algorithms or heuristic rules are available. However, in the multi-objective domain it is often impossible to provide specific and theoretically well founded algorithmic solutions. In that situation, multi-objective evolutionary algorithms are commonly used. Although several standard heuristics from this domain exist, most of them hardly allow the integration of available single-objective problem knowledge without complex redesign of the algorithms structure itself. The redesign and tuned application of common evolutionary multi-objective optimizers is far beyond the scope of scheduling research. We therefore describe a framework based on a cellular and agent-based approach which allows the straightforward construction of multi-objective optimizers by compositing single-objective scheduling heuristics. In a case study, we address strongly NP-hard parallel machine scheduling problems and compose optimizers combining the known single-objective results. We eventually show that this approach can bridge between scheduling theory and evolutionary multi-objective search.


Schedule Problem Multiobjective Optimization Parallel Machine Predator Prey Model Short Processing Time 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Baptiste, P.: Scheduling equal-length jobs on identical parallel machines. Discrete Applied Mathematics 103(1-3), 21–32 (2000)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beyer, H.-G.: The Theory of Evolution Strategies. Springer, Berlin (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bowman Jr., V.J.: On the Relationship of the Tchebycheff Norm and the Efficient Frontier of Multi-Criteria Objectives. In: Thiriez, H., Zionts, S. (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol. 130, pp. 76–85. Springer, Berlin (1976)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bruno, J., Coffman Jr., E.G., Sethi, R.: Scheduling independent tasks to reduce mean finishing time. Communications of the ACM 17(7), 382–387 (1974)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coello Coello, C., Lamont, G.B., van Veldhuizen, D.A.: Evolutionary Algorithms for Solving Multi-Objective Problems, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (2007)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conover, W.J., Johnson, M.E., Johnson, M.M.: A comparative study of tests for homogeneity of variances, with applications to the outer continental shelf bidding data. Technometrics 4(23), 351–361 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dalgaard, P.: Introductory Statistics with R. In: Statistics and Computing, Springer, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Das, I., Dennis, J.E.: A closer look at drawbacks of minimizing weighted sums of objectives for Pareto set generation in multicriteria optimization problems. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 14, 63–69 (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deb, K.: Multi-Objective Optimization using Evolutionary Algorithms, 1st edn. Wiley-Interscience Series in Systems and Optimization. Wiley (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deb, K., Agrawal, S., Pratab, A., Meyarivan, T.: A Fast Elitist Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm for Multi-objective Optimization: NSGA-II. In: Deb, K., Rudolph, G., Lutton, E., Merelo, J.J., Schoenauer, M., Schwefel, H.-P., Yao, X. (eds.) PPSN 2000. LNCS, vol. 1917, pp. 849–858. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T.: A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6(2), 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dutot, P.-F., Rzadca, K., Saule, E., Trystram, D.: Multi-Objective Scheduling. In: Introduction to Scheduling, 1st edn., pp. 219–251. CRC Press (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fligner, M.A., Killeen, T.J.: Distribution-free two-sample tests for scale. Journal of the American Statistical Association 71(353), 210–213 (1976)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garey, M.R., Johnson, D.S.: Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness. Freeman, San Francisco (1979)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Graham, R.L., Lawer, E.L., Lenstra, J.K., Rinnooy Kan, A.H.G.: Optimization and approximation in deterministic sequencing and scheduling: A survey. Annals of Discrete Mathematics 5, 287–326 (1979)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grimme, C., Kemmerling, M., Lepping, J.: An expertise-guided multi-criteria approach to scheduling problems. In: Proceedings of the International Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO), pp. 47–48. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grimme, C., Lepping, J.: Designing Multi-objective Variation Operators Using a Predator-Prey Approach. In: Obayashi, S., Deb, K., Poloni, C., Hiroyasu, T., Murata, T. (eds.) EMO 2007. LNCS, vol. 4403, pp. 21–35. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Grimme, C., Lepping, J.: Integrating niching into the predator-prey model using epsilon-constraints. In: Proceedings of the International Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO), pp. 109–110. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grimme, C., Lepping, J., Papaspyrou, A.: Exploring the Behavior of Building Blocks for Multi-Objective Variation Operator Design using Predator-Prey Dynamics. In: Thierens, D., et al. (eds.) Proceedings of the International Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO), London, pp. 805–812. ACM (June 2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grimme, C., Lepping, J., Schwiegelshohn, U.: Multi-Criteria Scheduling: An Agent-based Approach for Expert Knowledge Integration. Journal of Scheduling, 1–15 (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haupt, R.: A Survey of Priority Rule-Based Scheduling. OR Spectrum 11(1), 3–16 (1989)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ho, J.C., Chang, Y.-L.: Minimizing the number of tardy jobs for m parallel machines. European Journal of Operational Research 84(2), 343–355 (1995)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hoogeveen, H.: Multicriteria scheduling. European Journal of Operational Research 167(3), 592–623 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jägersküpper, J., Preuß, M.: Empirical Investigation of Simplified Step-Size Control in Metaheuristics with a View to Theory. In: McGeoch, C.C. (ed.) WEA 2008. LNCS, vol. 5038, pp. 263–274. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jouglet, A., Savourey, D.: Dominance rules for the parallel machine total weighted tardiness scheduling problem with release dates. Computers & Operations Research 38(9), 1259–1266 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kawaguchi, T., Kyan, S.: Worst case bound of an lrf schedule for the mean weighted flow-time problem. SIAM Journal on Computing 15(4), 1119–1129 (1986)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Laumanns, M., Rudolph, G., Schwefel, H.-P.: A Spatial Predator-Prey Approach to Multi-objective Optimization: A Preliminary Study. In: Eiben, A.E., Bäck, T., Schoenauer, M., Schwefel, H.-P. (eds.) PPSN 1998. LNCS, vol. 1498, pp. 241–249. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Laumanns, M., Thiele, L., Zitzler, E.: An efficient, adaptive parameter variation scheme for metaheuristics based on the epsilon-constraint method. European Journal of Operational Research 169(3), 932–942 (2006)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lei, D.: Multi–objective production scheduling: a survey. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 43(9), 926–938 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lenstra, J.K., Rinnooy Kan, A.H.G., Brucker, P.: Complexity of machine scheduling problems. Annals of Discrete Mathematics 1, 343–362 (1977)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Li, X., Amodeo, L., Yalaoui, F., Chehade, H.: A multiobjective optimization approach to solve a parallel machines scheduling problem. Advances in Artificial Intelligence, 1–10 (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Miettinen, K.: Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization. Kluwer’s International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Moore, J.M.: An n–job, one machine sequencing algorithm for minimizing the number of late jobs. Management Science 15(1), 102–109 (1968)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nagar, A., Haddock, J., Heragu, S.: Multiple and bicriteria scheduling: A literature survey. European Journal of Operational Research 81(1), 88–104 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pinedo, M.: Scheduling: Theory, Algorithms, and Systems, 3rd edn. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sahni, S.K.: Algorithms for scheduling independent tasks. Journal of the ACM 23(1), 116–127 (1976)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schwiegelshohn, U.: An alternative proof of the Kawaguchi-Kyan bound for the Largest-Ratio-First rule. Technical Report 0111, TU Dortmund University (2011)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    SongFa, H., Ying, Z.: NSGA-II based grid task scheduling with multi-qos constraint. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computing (WGEC 2009), pp. 306–308. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Süer, G.A., Báez, E., Czajkiewicz, Z.: Minimizing the number of tardy jobs in identical machine scheduling. Computers and Industrial Engineering 25(1-4), 243–246 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    T’kindt, V., Billaut, J.-C.: Multicriteria Scheduling. Theory, Models and Algorithms, 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin (2006)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    van Wassenhove, L.N., Gelders, F.: Solving a Bicriterion Scheduling Problem. European Journal of Operational Research 2(4), 281–290 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yuan, X., Quanfeng, L.: Bicriteria parallel machines scheduling problem with fuzzy due dates based on NSGA-II. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Intelligent Systems (ICIS 2010), vol. 3, pp. 520–524. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zitzler, E.: Evolutionary Algorithms for Multiobjective Optimization: Methods and Applications. PhD thesis, ETH Zürich (1999)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zitzler, E., Thiele, L.: Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: A Comparative Case Study and the Strength Pareto Approach. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 3(4), 257–271 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Grimme
    • 1
    Email author
  • Markus Kemmerling
    • 1
  • Joachim Lepping
    • 2
  1. 1.Robotics Research InstituteTUDortmundGermany
  2. 2.INRIA Rhône-AlpesGrenoble UniversityGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations