Skip to main content
Log in

Multi-criteria scheduling: an agent-based approach for expert knowledge integration

  • Published:
Journal of Scheduling Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this work, we present an agent-based approach to multi-criteria combinatorial optimization. It allows to flexibly combine elementary heuristics that may be optimal for corresponding single-criterion problems.

We optimize an instance of the scheduling problem 1|d j |∑C j ,L max and show that the modular building block architecture of our optimization model and the distribution of acting entities enables the easy integration of problem specific expert knowledge. We present a universal mutation operator for combinatorial problem encodings that allows to construct certain solution strategies, such as advantageous sorting or known optimal sequencing procedures. In this way, it becomes possible to derive more complex heuristics from atomic local heuristics that are known to solve fractions of the complete problem. We show that we can approximate both single-criterion problems such as P m |d j |∑U j as well as more challenging multi-criteria scheduling problems, like P m ||C max,∑C j and P m |d j |C max,∑C j ,∑U j . The latter problems are evaluated with extensive simulations comparing the standard multi-criteria evolutionary algorithm NSGA-2 and the new agent-based model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bartz-Beielstein, T., Lasarczyk, C. W. G., & Preuss, M. (2005). Sequential parameter optimization. In IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (Vol. 1, pp. 773–780). New York: IEEE Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C. L., & Bulfin, R. L. (1993). Complexity of single machine multi-criteria scheduling problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 70, 115–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coello, C. A. C., Lamont, G. B., & Veldhuizen, D. A. V. (2007). Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems. Genetic and evolutionary computation (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conover, W. J., Johnson, M. E., & Johnson, M. M. (1981). A comparative study of tests for homogeneity of variances, with applications to the outer continental shelf bidding data. Technometrics, 4(23), 351–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deb, K. (2001). Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley-interscience series in systems and optimization (1st ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deb, K., Agrawal, S., Pratab, A., & Meyarivan, T. (2000). A fast elitist non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization: NSGA-II. In M. Schoenauer et al. (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 1917. Proceedings of the conference on parallel problem solving from nature (pp. 849–858). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durillo, J., Nebro, A., & Alba, E. (2010). The jMetal framework for multi-objective optimization: design and architecture. In IEEE congress on evolutionary computation (Vol. 5467, pp. 4138–4325). Barcelona, Spain. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutot, P. F., Rzadca, K., Saule, E., & Trystram, D. (2010). Multi-objective scheduling. In Introduction to scheduling, (1st ed.). (pp. 219–251). Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emmerich, M., Beume, N., & Naujoks, B. (2005). An EMO algorithm using the hypervolume measure as selection criterion. In Proceedings of the international conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization (pp. 62–76).

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fligner, M. A., & Killeen, T. J. (1976). Distribution-free two-sample tests for scale. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71(353), 210–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garey, M. R., & Johnson, D. S. (1978). “Strong” NP-completeness results: motivation, examples, and implications. Journal of the ACM, 25(3), 499–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, R. L. (1969). Bounds on multiprocessing timing anomalies. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 17, 416–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, R. L., Lawer, E. L., Lenstra, J. K., & Kan, A. H. G. R. (1979). Optimization and approximation in deterministic sequencing and scheduling: a survey. Annals of Discrete Mathematics, 5, 287–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimme, C., & Lepping, J. (2007). Designing multi-objective variation operators using a predator–prey approach. In Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 4403. Proceedings of the international conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization (pp. 21–35). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grimme, C., Lepping, J., & Papaspyrou, A. (2007). Exploring the behavior of building blocks for multi-objective variation operator design using predator–prey dynamics. In D. Thierens et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference (pp. 805–812). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoogeveen, H. (2005). Multicriteria scheduling. European Journal of Operational Research, 167(3), 592–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J. R. (1955). Scheduling a production line to minimize maximum tardiness (Management Science Research Project, Research Report 43), University of California, Los Angeles.

  • Knowles, J., & Corne, D. (2000). Approximating the nondominated front using the Pareto archived evolution strategies. Evolutionary Computation, 8(2), 149–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, J., & Corne, D. (2007). Quantifying the effects of objective space dimension in evolutionary multiobjective optimization. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on evolutionary multi-criterion optimization (pp. 757–771). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Laumanns, M., Rudolph, G., & Schwefel, H. P. (1998). A spatial predator–prey approach to multi-objective optimization: a preliminary study. In T. Bäck et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the conference on parallel problem solving from nature (pp. 241–249). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J. M. (1968). An n job, one machine sequencing algorithm for minimizing the number of late jobs. Management Science, 15, 102–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinedo, M. (2009). Scheduling: theory, algorithms, and systems (3rd ed.). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwefel, H. P. (1995). Evolution and optimum seeking (1st ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. E. (1956). Various optimizers for single-stage production. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 3, 59–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, C., & Wein, J. (1997). On the existence of schedules that are near-optimal for both makespan and total weighted completion time. Operations Research Letters, 21, 115–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Süer, G. A., Báez, E., & Czajkiewicz, Z. (1993). Minimizing the number of tardy jobs in identical machine scheduling. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 25(1–4), 243–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • T’kindt, V., & Billaut, J. C. (2006). Multicriteria scheduling. Theory, models and algorithms (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Akker, M., & Hoogeveen, H. (2008). Minimizing the number of late jobs in a stochastic setting using a chance constraint. Journal of Scheduling, 11(1), 59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Wassenhove, L. N., & Gelders, F. (1980). Solving a bicriterion scheduling problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(4), 281–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincent, T. L., & Grantham, W. J. (1981). Optimality in parametric systems (1st ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zitzler, E. (1999). Evolutionary algorithms for multiobjective optimization: methods and applications. Ph.D. thesis, ETH Zürich.

  • Zitzler, E., & Thiele, L. (1999). Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 3(4), 257–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitzler, E., Laumanns, M., & Thiele, L. (2001). SPEA2: Improving the strength Pareto evolutionary algorithm (Technical Report 103). Computer Engineering and Communication Networks Lab (TIK), ETH Zürich.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joachim Lepping.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grimme, C., Lepping, J. & Schwiegelshohn, U. Multi-criteria scheduling: an agent-based approach for expert knowledge integration. J Sched 16, 369–383 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10951-011-0256-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10951-011-0256-7

Keywords

Navigation