A Two-Phase Grammar-Based Genetic Algorithm for a Workshop Scheduling Problem

  • Andreas Geyer-Schulz
  • Anke Thede
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization book series (STUDIES CLASS)


In this contribution we present a two-phase grammar-based genetic algorithm that we use to solve the problem of workshop scheduling in an educational environment which respects partial preferences of participants. The solution respects constraints on workshop capacities and allows for different schedule types. We approach this problem by defining a grammar which defines a language for expressing the restrictions on workshops and participants. A word of this formal language represents a solution which by definition of the language is always feasible. For each feasible schedule the fitness is the result of optimizing the group’s social welfare function which is defined as the sum of the individual utility functions as expressed by the partial preferences. This optimization is achieved with an order based genetic algorithm which assigns to each participant his personal schedule.


Genetic Algorithm Knapsack Problem Feasible Schedule Terminal Symbol Partial Preference 
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. BRUHN, P. (2000): Genetische Programmierung auf Basis beschränkter kontextfreier Sprachen zur Lösung kombinatorischer Optimierungsprobleme. Phd Thesis, Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien.Google Scholar
  2. BRUHN, P. and GEYER-SCHULZ, A. (2002): Genetic Programming Over Context-Free Languages with Linear Constraints for the Knapsack Problem: First Results. Journal of Evolutionary Computation, 10(1), 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. GOLDBERG, D.E. (2001): Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley Pub Co, New York. Ed. 22.Google Scholar
  4. GOTTLIEB, J. and RAIDL, G.R. (2000): Characterizing locality in decoder-based eas for the multidimensional knapsack problem. In: C. Fonlupt, J.-K. Hao, E. Lutton, E. Ronald, and M. Schoenauer (Eds.): Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Artificial Evolution. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 38–51.Google Scholar
  5. KOZA, J.R. (1998): Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural Selection. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Ed. 6.Google Scholar
  6. MERKLE, D., MIDDENDORF, M., and SCHMECK, H. (2002): Ant Colony Optimization for Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6(4), 333–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. NEUMANN, K., SCHWINDT, C, and ZIMMERMANN, J. (2002): Project Scheduling with Time Windows and Scarce Resources. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
  8. STARKWEATHER, T., McDANIEL, S., MATHIAS, K, WHITLEY, D., and WHITLEY, C. (1991): A Comparison of Genetic Sequencing Operators. In R.K. Belew and L.B. Booker (Eds.): Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Meteo, California, 69–76.Google Scholar
  9. WINKLER, G. (1995): Image Analysis, Random Fields and Dynamic Monte Carlo Methods. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Geyer-Schulz
    • 1
  • Anke Thede
    • 1
  1. 1.Schroff-Stiftungslehrstuhl Informationsdienste und elektronische Märkte, Institut fur Informationswirtschaft und -managementUniversität Karlsruhe (TH)KarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations