Reference Point Adaption Method for Genetic Programming Hyper-Heuristic in Many-Objective Job Shop Scheduling

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10782)

Abstract

Job Shop Scheduling (JSS) is considered to be one of the most significant combinatorial optimization problems in practice. It is widely evidenced in the literature that JSS usually contains many (four or more) potentially conflicting objectives. One of the promising and successful approaches to solve the JSS problem is Genetic Programming Hyper-Heuristic (GP-HH). This approach automatically evolves dispatching rules for solving JSS problems. This paper aims to evolve a set of effective dispatching rules for many-objective JSS with genetic programming and NSGA-III. NSGA-III originally defines uniformly distributed reference points in the objective space. Thus, there will be few reference points with no Pareto optimal solutions associated with them; especially, in the cases with discrete and non-uniform Pareto front, resulting in many useless reference points during evolution. In other words, these useless reference points adversely affect the performance of NSGA-III and genetic programming. To address the above issue, in this paper a new reference point adaptation mechanism is proposed based on the distribution of the candidate solutions. We evaluated the performance of the proposed mechanism on many-objective benchmark JSS instances. Our results clearly show that the proposed strategy is promising in adapting reference points and outperforms the existing state-of-the-art algorithms for many-objective JSS.

Keywords

Job Shop Scheduling Many-objective optimization Genetic programming Reference points 

References

  1. 1.
    Błażewicz, J., Domschke, W., Pesch, E.: The job shop scheduling problem: conventional and new solution techniques. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 93(1), 1–33 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T.: A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 6, 182–197 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Deb, K., Jain, H.: An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point-based nondominated sorting approach, part I: solving problems with box constraints. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 18(4), 577–601 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jain, H., Deb, K.: An improved adaptive approach for elitist nondominated sorting genetic algorithm for many-objective optimization. In: Purshouse, R.C., Fleming, P.J., Fonseca, C.M., Greco, S., Shaw, J. (eds.) EMO 2013. LNCS, vol. 7811, pp. 307–321. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37140-0_25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jain, H., Deb, K.: An evolutionary many-objective optimization algorithm using reference-point based nondominated sorting approach, part II: handling constraints and extending to an adaptive approach. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 18(4), 602–622 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Masood, A., Mei, Y., Chen, G., Zhang, M.: Many-objective genetic programming for job-shop scheduling. In: IEEE WCCI 2016 Conference Proceedings. IEEE (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Masood, A., Mei, Y., Chen, G., Zhang, M.: A PSO-based reference point adaption method for genetic programming hyper-heuristic in many-objective job shop scheduling. In: Wagner, M., Li, X., Hendtlass, T. (eds.) ACALCI 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10142, pp. 326–338. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51691-2_28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mei, Y., Zhang, M., Nyugen, S.: Feature selection in evolving job shop dispatching rules with genetic programming. In: GECCO. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nguyen, S., Zhang, M., Johnston, M.: A genetic programming based hyper-heuristic approach for combinatorial optimisation. In: Krasnogor, N., Lanzi, P.L. (eds.) GECCO, pp. 1299–1306. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nguyen, S., Zhang, M., Johnston, M., Tan, K.C.: Dynamic multi-objective job shop scheduling: a genetic programming approach. In: Uyar, A., Ozcan, E., Urquhart, N. (eds.) Automated Scheduling and Planning. SCI, vol. 505, pp. 251–282. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39304-4_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pinedo, M.L.: Scheduling: Theory, Algorithms, and Systems. Springer Science & Business Media, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Taillard, E.: Benchmarks for basic scheduling problems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 64(2), 278–285 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang, Q., Zhou, A., Zhao, S., Suganthan, P.N., Liu, W., Tiwari, S.: Multiobjective optimization test instances for the CEC 2009 special session and competition. Technical report. University of Essex, Colchester, UK and Nanyang technological University, Singapore, special session on performance assessment of multi-objective optimization algorithms, pp. 1–30 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zitzler, E., Laumanns, M., Thiele, L.: SPEA2: improving the strength pareto evolutionary algorithm. In: EUROGEN 2001. Evolutionary Methods for Design, Optimization and Control with Applications to Industrial Problems, pp. 95–100 (2002)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zitzler, E., Thiele, L., Laumanns, M., Fonseca, C.M., Da Fonseca, V.G.: Performance assessment of multiobjective optimizers: an analysis and review. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 7(2), 117–132 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Victoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations