Advertisement

Directing the search of evolutionary and neighbourhood-search optimisers for the flowshop sequencing problem with an idle-time heuristic

  • Peter Ross
  • Andrew Tuson
Progress in Evolutionary Scheduling
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1305)

Abstract

This paper presents a heuristic for directing the neighbourhood (mutation operator) of stochastic optimisers, such as evolutionary algorithms, so to improve performance for the flowshop sequencing problem. Based on idle time, the heuristic works on the assumption that jobs that have to wait a relatively long time between machines are in an unsuitable position in the schedule and should be moved. The results presented here show that the heuristic improves performance, especially for problems with a large number of jobs. In addition the effectiveness of the heuristic and search in general was found to depend upon the neighbourhood structure in a consistent fashion across optimisers.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Brindle. Genetic Algorithms for Function Optimization. PhD thesis, University of Alberta, 1981.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Duéck. New Optimisation Heuristics: The Great Deluge Algorithm and the Record-to-Record Travel. Technical report, IBM Germany, Heidelburg Scientific Center, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Dueck and T. Scheuer. Threshold Accepting: A General Purpose Optimisation Algorithm Superior to Simulated Annealing. Journal of Computation Physics, 90:161–175, 1990.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. Hjorring. The Vehicle Routing Problem and Local Search Metaheuristics. PhD thesis, University of Queensland, Australia, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.C. Ho and Y.-H. Chang. A new heuristic for the n-job, M-machine flow-shop problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 52:194–202, 1991.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J.H. Holland. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. H. G. Rinnooy Kan. Machine Sequencing Problems: Classification, complexity and computations. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1976.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Kirkpatrick, C.D. Gelatt, Jr., and M.P. Vecchi. Optimization by Simulated Annealing. Science, 220:671–680, 1983.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Minton, A. Phillips, A. Johnston, and P. Laird. Solving Large Scale CSP and Scheduling Problems with a Heuristic Repair Method. In Proceedings of AAAI-90, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. F. Mott. Optimising Flowshop Scheduling Through Adaptive Genetic Algorithms. Chemistry Part II Thesis, Oxford University, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Nowicki and C. Smutnicki. A fast tabu search algorithm for the permutation flow-shop problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 91:160–175, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    I. H. Osman and C. N. Potts. Simulated annealing for permutation flow-shop scheduling. OMEGA, 17:551–557, 1989.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Rajendran and D. Chaudhuri. An efficient heuristic approach to the scheduling of jobs in a flowshop. European Journal of Operational Research, 61:318–325, 1991.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Peter Ross. Personal communication, 1996.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peter Ross, Dave Corne, and Hsiao-Lan Fang. Improving evolutionary timetabling with delta evaluation and directed mutation. In Y. Davidor, H-P. Schwefel, and R. Manner, editors, Parallel Problem-solving from Nature-PPSN III, LNCS, pages 566–565. Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    E. Taillard. Benchmarks for basic scheduling problems. European Journal of operations research, 64:278–285, 1993.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. Yamada and R. Nakano. Scheduling by Genetic Local Search with Multi-Step Crossover. In The Fourth International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving From Nature (PPSN IV), 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    M. Zweben and E. Davis. Learning to Improve Iterative Repair Scheduling. Technical report, NASA Ames Research Centre, Report FIA-92-14, 1992.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Zweben, E. Davis, B. Daun, and M. Deale. Scheduling and Rescheduling with Iterative Repair. Technical report, NASA Ames Research Centre, Report FIA-92-16, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Ross
    • 1
  • Andrew Tuson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Artificial IntelligenceUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations