applications of genetic algorithms to resource constrained scheduling tasks
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Applications of Genetic Algorithms to Resource-Constrained Scheduling Tasks

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 67

Applications of Genetic Algorithms to Resource-Constrained Scheduling Tasks - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 149 Views
  • Uploaded on

Applications of Genetic Algorithms to Resource-Constrained Scheduling Tasks. Keith Downing Dept. of Computer and Information Sciences The Norwegian University of Science & Technology Trondheim, Norway [email protected] Outline. Introduction to Evolutionary Algorithms Basic Concepts

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Applications of Genetic Algorithms to Resource-Constrained Scheduling Tasks' - asa


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
applications of genetic algorithms to resource constrained scheduling tasks
Applications of Genetic Algorithms to Resource-Constrained Scheduling Tasks

Keith Downing

Dept. of Computer and Information Sciences

The Norwegian University of Science & Technology

Trondheim, Norway

[email protected]

outline
Outline
  • Introduction to Evolutionary Algorithms
    • Basic Concepts
    • Simple Scheduling Example
  • Applying EA’s to Scheduling Problems
    • Travelling Salesman
    • Job Sequencing
    • Classic Job-Shop Scheduling

* Main Focus: Representational Issues

darwinian evolution

Sex

Recombination

& Mutation

Morphogenesis

Darwinian Evolution

Physiological, Behavioral

Phenotypes

Natural Selection

Ptypes

Reproduction

Gtypes

Genotypes

Genetic

evolutionary algorithms

R &M

Translate

Recombination

& Mutation

Evolutionary Algorithms

Semantic

Parameters,

Code,

Neural Nets,

Rules

Performance Test

P,C,N,R

Generate

Bits

Bit Strings

Syntactic

evolutionary computation parallel stochastic search

Next Generation

Evolutionary Computation = Parallel Stochastic Search

Biased Roulette Wheel

6

1

5

Selection Biasing

4

2

Translation &

Performance

Test

3

Selection

Mutation

Crossover

types of evolutionary algorithms
Types of Evolutionary Algorithms

Genetic Algorithms (Holland, 1975)

Representation: Bit Strings => Integer or real feature vectors

Syntactic crossover (main) & mutation (secondary)

Evolutionary Strategies (Recehenberg, 1972; Schwefel, 1995)

Representation: Real-valued feature vectors

Semantic mutation (main) & crossover (secondary)

Evolutionary Programs (Fogel, Owens & Walsh, 1966; Fogel, 1995)

Representation: Real-valued feature vectors or Finite State Machines

Semantic mutation (only)

View each individual as a whole species, hence no crossover

Genetic Programs (Koza, 1992)

Representation: Computer programs (typically in LISP)

Syntactic crossover (main) & mutation (secondary)

evolutionary computation requirements

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

7

P1

7

P2

14

4

15

5

X

11

2

P3

11

2

Evolutionary Computation Requirements
  • Domain that supports quantitative fitness assignment
  • Fitness function that accurately evaluates performance
  • Representation for solutions that tolerates mutation & crossover

Classic Genetic Algorithm

using evolutionary algorithms
Using Evolutionary Algorithms

When

  • Large, rough search spaces
  • Satisficing or Optimization problems
  • Entire solutions are easily generated and tested
  • Exhaustive search methods are too slow
  • Heuristic search methods cannot find good solutions (e.g. Stuck at local max)

How

  • Determine EA-amenable representation of solutions
  • Define fitness function
  • Define selection function = roulette-wheel biasing function (f: fitness -> area)
  • Set key EA parameters: population size, mutation rate, crossover rate, # generations, etc.

* EA’s are easy to write, and there’s lots of freeware!

* Specific problems often require specific representations & genetic operators

application areas for evolutionary algorithms
Application Areas for Evolutionary Algorithms
  • Optimization: Controllers, Job Schedules, Networks(TSP)
  • Electronics: Circuit Design (GP)
  • Finance: Stock time-series analysis & prediction
  • Economics: Emergence of Markets, Pricing & Purchasing Strategies
  • Sociology: cooperation, communication, ANTS!
  • Computer Science
    • Machine Learning: Classification, Prediction…
    • Algorithm design: Sorting networks
  • Biology
    • Immunology: natural & virtual (computer immune system)
    • Ecology: arms races, coevolution
    • Population genetics: roles of mutation, crossover & inversion
    • Evolution & Learning: Baldwin Effect, Lamarckism…
process scheduling kidwell 1993

P5

P1

P7

P3

P0

P6

P4

P2

Process Scheduling (Kidwell, 1993)
  • Task pairs (run + communicate result) to be run on a set of processors
    • ((7, 16) (11, 22) (12, 40), (15, 22)….)
  • A task’s run must finish before result sending begins
  • All processors share a central communication line (bus)
  • Each processor can handle only one task at a time.
  • Each processor is capable of running any of the tasks
  • Only one processor at a time can send its message
  • A task cannot be removed from a processor until both run & send are finished
  • Tasks run on the main processor, P0, require no communication time, whereas tasks run on all other processors must send their message to P0

Goal: Schedule the tasks on processors so as to minimize the total timespan

process schedule optimization using the genetic algorithm

Processor for Task #1

Processor for Task #4

...

...

(2 3 4 1 3 1 …….)

001000110100000100110001….

Process Schedule Optimization using the Genetic Algorithm

Use GA to search the space of possible schedules (solutions)

1. Represent schedule in a GA-amenable form (i.e. linearize it)

2. Define a fitness function

Fitness = MaxTimespan - Timespan

* Lower timespan => Higher fitness

Other possibilities: 1/(1 + (Timespan - MinTimespan))

ga based schedule optimization
GA-based Schedule Optimization

*Compute schedule’s timespan by running on a process-network simulator.

1. Remove next task (whose assigned processor is open) from task-list and

start simulating it on that processor.

2. Remove tasks from processors as soon as they finish running & sending

3. Define a biasing function to convert fitness to a proportion of the roulette wheel

Sigma Scaling: (One of many standard biasing functions):

ExpVal(x) = Max ( 0, 1 + (Fitness (x) - AvgFitness) / (2 * StDevFitness))

Normalizing:

Roulette-Wheel%(x) = ExpVal(x) / SumofAllExpVals

4. Select Mutation and Crossover Rates: pmut = 0 .01; pcross = 0.75

5. Select a population size popsize = 10

6. Select # of generations: numgen = 10

7. Run the Genetic Algorithm

Generates a random initial population (of schedules) and evolves them via sigma-scaling selection, crossover and mutation for numgen generations

kidwell s 1993 task list
Kidwell’s (1993) Task List

((7 16) (11 22) (12 40) (15 22) (17 23)

(17 23) (19 23) (20 28) (20 27) (26 27)

(28 31) (36 37) (31 29) (28 22) (23 19)

(22 18) (22 17) (29 16) (27 16) (35 15))

MaxTime = Sum of all run & send times = 916 time units

Use 8 processors: P0 - P7, with P0 being the master processor

population of schedules generation 0
Population of Schedules (Generation # 0)

These are randomly-generated:

Processor List

1: Span: 401 Fitn: 515 (11.0%)| (1 2 1 3 6 7 2 0 0 4 5 1 6 0 5 5 4 7 4 6)

2: Span: 383 Fitn: 533 (13.7%)| (1 0 1 0 0 4 0 1 0 5 3 6 2 5 5 5 1 3 5 7)

3: Span: 426 Fitn: 490 ( 7.1%)| (6 2 2 7 6 5 2 6 7 6 6 5 3 4 0 1 0 2 0 7)

4: Span: 415 Fitn: 501 ( 8.8%)| (5 0 5 7 1 2 5 4 2 6 3 6 2 0 0 4 1 7 3 1)

5: Span: 377 Fitn: 539 (14.7%)| (4 2 0 6 2 1 2 0 1 6 3 2 2 3 3 4 0 3 0 1)

6: Span: 435 Fitn: 481 ( 5.7%)| (3 2 7 7 6 0 3 1 4 7 7 5 1 0 4 6 5 5 5 6)

7: Span: 439 Fitn: 477 ( 5.1%)| (0 3 2 3 2 2 7 0 4 5 2 1 6 3 1 7 1 0 3 2)

8: Span: 410 Fitn: 506 ( 9.6%)| (2 5 2 1 0 0 2 2 5 0 1 3 6 1 3 3 4 6 2 0)

9: Span: 337 Fitn: 579 (20.9%)| (1 0 0 7 0 4 3 1 1 0 0 2 4 1 2 4 6 4 7 6)

10: Span: 449 Fitn: 467 ( 3.5%)| (2 2 2 4 1 4 4 6 6 4 7 4 0 6 2 5 2 7 7 7)

Avg Fitness: 508.80 StDev Fitness: 32.28

population of schedules generation 1
Population of Schedules (Generation # 1)

1: Span: 366 Fitn: 550 (12.1%)| (1 0 0 3 0 4 2 1 0 1 3 6 4 5 7 4 5 7 5 6)

2: Span: 406 Fitn: 510 ( 7.9%)| (1 0 1 4 0 4 1 1 1 4 0 2 2 1 0 5 2 0 7 7)

3: Span: 377 Fitn: 539 (11.0%)| (4 2 0 6 2 1 2 0 1 6 3 2 2 3 3 4 0 3 0 1)

4: Span: 464 Fitn: 452 ( 1.8%)| (1 0 1 3 0 4 2 0 1 4 4 2 4 1 5 5 4 6 4 6)

5: Span: 366 Fitn: 550 (12.1%)| (1 2 0 7 6 7 3 1 0 0 1 1 6 0 2 4 6 5 7 6)

6: Span: 337 Fitn: 579 (15.2%)| (1 0 0 7 0 4 3 1 1 0 0 2 4 1 2 4 6 4 7 6)

7: Span: 337 Fitn: 579 (15.2%)| (1 0 0 7 0 4 3 1 1 0 0 2 4 1 2 4 6 4 7 6)

8: Span: 415 Fitn: 501 ( 7.0%)| (5 0 5 7 1 2 5 4 2 6 3 6 2 0 0 4 1 7 3 1)

9: Span: 465 Fitn: 451 ( 1.7%)| (5 5 7 7 1 2 5 2 3 6 1 6 2 1 0 5 1 7 2 1)

10: Span: 329 Fitn: 587 (16.0%)| (2 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 4 0 3 3 6 0 3 2 4 6 3 0)

Avg Fitness: 529.80 StDev Fitness: 47.43

slide18

Population of Schedules (Generation # 2)

1: Span: 337 Fitn: 579 (11.7%)| (1 0 0 7 0 0 6 0 2 6 3 6 0 4 1 4 1 7 1 1)

2: Span: 465 Fitn: 451 ( 0.0%)| (5 0 5 3 1 6 1 5 0 1 3 6 6 1 6 4 5 7 7 6)

3: Span: 366 Fitn: 550 ( 8.8%)| (1 2 0 7 6 7 3 1 0 0 1 1 6 0 2 4 6 5 7 6)

4: Span: 329 Fitn: 587 (12.5%)| (2 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 4 0 3 3 6 0 3 2 4 6 3 0)

5: Span: 329 Fitn: 587 (12.5%)| (2 0 0 1 0 0 2 4 4 0 3 3 6 0 3 2 4 6 3 0)

6: Span: 270 Fitn: 646 (18.4%)| (1 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 3 4 0 2 2 4 6 3 2)

7: Span: 364 Fitn: 552 ( 9.0%)| (2 0 0 3 0 4 3 5 5 0 0 2 6 1 3 4 6 4 7 4)

8: Span: 337 Fitn: 579 (11.7%)| (1 0 0 7 0 4 3 1 1 0 0 2 4 1 2 4 6 4 7 6)

9: Span: 347 Fitn: 569 (10.7%)| (5 0 1 7 1 6 1 4 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 4 5 7 7 0)

10: Span: 410 Fitn: 506 ( 4.5%)| (1 0 4 7 0 0 7 1 3 6 2 6 4 1 2 4 2 4 3 7)

Avg Fitness: 560.60 StDev Fitness: 49.61

slide20

Population of Schedules (Generation # 6)

1: Span: 263 Fitn: 653 (10.6%)| (1 0 0 7 0 4 6 0 0 4 3 7 0 0 0 0 5 6 3 6)

2: Span: 232 Fitn: 684 (16.7%)| (1 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 6 3 3 0 0 2 2 0 7 1 0)

3: Span: 325 Fitn: 591 ( 0.0%)| (1 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 2 3 3 4 0 3 4 5 7 3 2)

4: Span: 261 Fitn: 655 (11.0%)| (1 0 0 7 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 1 6 3 2)

5: Span: 249 Fitn: 667 (13.3%)| (1 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 6 0 0 3 0 5 6 3 2)

6: Span: 255 Fitn: 661 (12.1%)| (1 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 0 5 7 3 2)

7: Span: 292 Fitn: 624 ( 4.8%)| (1 0 0 7 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 3 4 0 0 4 1 6 3 2)

8: Span: 269 Fitn: 647 ( 9.4%)| (1 0 0 7 0 4 6 0 0 4 3 7 0 0 2 0 4 6 3 6)

9: Span: 247 Fitn: 669 (13.7%)| (1 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 7 4 0 0 4 1 6 3 2)

10: Span: 274 Fitn: 642 ( 8.4%)| (1 0 0 7 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 0 5 6 3 2)

Avg Fitness: 649.30 StDev Fitness: 24.87

slide22

Population of Schedules (Generation # 9)

1: Span: 265 Fitn: 651 ( 0.4%)| (1 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 6 0 0 1 0 5 7 3 2)

2: Span: 241 Fitn: 675 (12.3%)| (1 0 0 7 0 0 2 0 0 4 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 6 1 0)

3: Span: 238 Fitn: 678 (13.8%)| (1 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 6 3 3 0 0 1 0 1 6 1 0)

4: Span: 258 Fitn: 658 ( 3.8%)| (1 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 6 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 0)

5: Span: 248 Fitn: 668 ( 8.8%)| (1 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 3 0 0 1 0 1 6 3 0)

6: Span: 246 Fitn: 670 ( 9.8%)| (1 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 6 3 7 0 0 1 0 5 7 1 2)

7: Span: 246 Fitn: 670 ( 9.8%)| (1 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 4 3 3 0 0 1 0 5 7 1 2)

8: Span: 242 Fitn: 674 (11.8%)| (1 0 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 2 3 6 0 0 3 0 1 6 3 0)

9: Span: 226 Fitn: 690 (19.7%)| (1 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 6 0 0 3 0 5 6 3 2)

10: Span: 246 Fitn: 670 ( 9.8%)| (5 0 0 5 0 0 2 0 0 2 3 6 0 0 3 0 5 7 3 2)

Avg Fitness: 670.40 StDev Fitness: 10.06 (Convergence)

slide24

Process-Schedule Evolution

GA falls off

a peak

Convergence

travelling salesman problem tsp
Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP)

Given: N cities & matrix of distances between them.

Find:Shortest cyclic tour that visits all cities.

  • NP-Hard: Exponential to both find solutions & to verify solutions
  • Heuristic Methods: Find optimal solutions when N< 1000.
  • Genetic Algorithm: Find good solutions for any N
  • Applications: Network building, Delivery routing, Sequence scheduling...
applying gas to tsp
Applying GAs to TSP

Fitness Function: 1/tour-length or optimal-tour-length/tour-length

Chromosome:

Direct Representation: List of cities (standard approach)

7 3 25 31 12 1 5 14….

Indirect Representation: List of next city to pull from ordered list and insert into the solution sequence

1 1 2 3 5…. => 1 2 4 6 9…

Crossover

Standard Bit or Integer Cross: Only works for indirect representations

Location Preserving: Children inherit, as much as possible, cities in same gene location as parents

Edge Preserving: Children inherit, as much as possible, city-city edges from parents (actual edge locations in the chromosome may vary from parent to kid)

*Crossover is the key element to TSP GA’s - and where most research is done.

representational issues for ga based tsp

6 3 2 1 5 6

2 x 6; 0 x 4

6 3 2 5 4 1

4 2 3 1 5 6

X

4 2 3 5 4 1

2 x 4; 0 x 6

Representational Issues for GA-based TSP
  • Standard Crossover & Mutation are purely syntactic => pay no attention to semantics (i.e. The meanings of the bits or integers that they manipulate).
  • Direct representations often embody constraints that simple crossover & mutation cannot enforce.
  • Indirect representations usually involve fewer constraints, so simple crossover & mutation are often sufficient.
  • Compare to Process Scheduling (Kidwell), where constraints (i.e. All alleles between 0 and N) were easy to enforce.
partially mapped crossover pmx
Partially-Mapped Crossover (PMX)

Goldberg (1985)

1. Choose equal-length segments to swap

2. Create a mapping between corresponding elems of the segments

3. Swap the segments

4. Apply the map to each child to restore completeness

Select Segments

P1: 1 6 3 4 5 7 2 8

P2: 3 7 6 5 8 1 2 4

Create Map

(4 <=> 5; 5 <=> 8; 7<=> 1)

Swap

K1’: 1 635 8 1 28 Blue positions must be changed via mapping

K2’: 3 7 6 4 5 7 2 4

Apply Map (twice for last position in this eg.)

K1: 7 635 8 1 24

K2: 3 1 6 4 5 7 2 8

subtour operations cleveland smith 89
Subtour Operations (Cleveland & Smith, ‘89)

Subtour Chunking

  • Select random chunks from the parents
  • Prune chunk of cities that already exist in the child
  • Insert chunk into child position as close as possible to its position in parent

P1: (9 4 3)32(6 8 7 1)1(5 10)5

P2: 3 5 8 (7 10 4 6)2 9 (2 1)4

K1: 9 3 10 4 6 8 7 12 5

Subtour Replacement

Find chunks with same elems in both parents and swap them

P1: 1 5 6 3 2 4 8 7

P2: 2 7 4 8 1 6 5 3

K1: 1 5 6 3 2 7 4 8

K2: 24 8 71 6 5 3

inheritance
Inheritance
  • For GA’s to make progress, they must pass on many of the good features from generation G to generation G+1.
  • Hence, when parents crossover, the good features of each should be preserved in at least one of the children.
  • Biology: Heritability = degree to which children resemble their parents

(Xkid-avg - Xpop-avg) = heritability*(Xparent-avg -Xpop-avg)

Location Preservation (1985 - 1988)

  • With PMX & Subtour exchanges, kids inherit many cities in the same position as in one of the parents.
  • Results not that promising

=> GA viewed as inappropriate for TSP.

Edge Preservation (1989 - present)

  • Edges are the key contributors to TSP costs (fitness), so what we really need to preserve are city pairs (i.e. Edges) of TSP tours.
  • GA’s with edge focus perform much better, near optimal

=> GA useful for TSP!

edge recombination operator ero
Edge Recombination Operator (ERO)
  • Whitley, Starkweather & Fuquay (1989)
  • Maximizes edge inheritance

1. Create Edge Map

2. Init Kid with one of the parent’s first city:

3. Remove new kid city, NKC, from edge map

4. NKC = neighbor of NKC with the smallest edge list. If no remaining neighbors, randomly pick an unvisited city (=> violate edge inheritance)

5. If tour not complete goto 3

Edge Map

A {CBE} B {AC F }

E.g. ACDEFB x EABCFD C {A BD F} D {CE F}

E {AD F} F {BCDE}

A =>{C(3), B(2), E(2) => AE => {D(2), F(3)} =>AED => {C(2), F(2)}

=>AEDC => {B(1), F(1)} => AEDCB => {F(0)} => AEDCBF

* All edges in kid except FA come from one or another parent

binary matrix crossover
Binary Matrix Crossover
  • Homaifar, Guan & Liepins (1993)
  • During crossover convert TSP tours to unidirectional connection matrices

(c a b e f d) x (e b f a d c) => illegal tour => (a d c e b f)

a b c d e f a b c d e f a b c d e f a b c d e f

a 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

b 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

c 1 0 0 0 0 0 X 0 0 0 0 1 0 => 1 0 0 0 1 0 => 0 0 0 0 1 0

d 0 0 1 0 0 0 (2nd bit) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

e 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

f 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Problem: Redundancies (rows 1 & 3) and omissions (rows 5 & 6) in child

Solution: Move 1’s from redundant rows to all-zero rows in a manner that preserves as many parent edges as possible.

100% edge preservation in example above.

binary matrix crossover 2
Binary Matrix Crossover (2)

Problem: Cycles of length < N

Solution: Cut cycles and connect to one another

*Whenever possible, the cycle-connecting edges should come from a parent

Inversion: Choose a segment of the tour and reverse it.

Hill Climbing: Only keep inversion products that yield higher fitness (shorter tours)

Evolution (GA) + Learning (Hill Climbing) + Lamarckism (Reverse-encoding of

learned improvement into the genome/tour)

tsp benchmark comparison
TSP Benchmark Comparison
  • Edge Inheritance beats position inheritance.
  • Evolution + Learning beats evolution
indirect representations grefenstette 1985
Indirect Representations (Grefenstette, 1985)

2 3 1 2 2 4...

Pull 2nd element from the sorted list of unused cities and

insert it into the next spot in the solution path

  • Advantages
  • Simple Representation
  • Crossover & Mutation create legal tours => no (time consuming) special ops required
  • Disadvantages
  • Low Heritability (of positions and edges)
    • Crossover can disrupt position sequences on right side of the crossover point
inheritance problems with indirect representations
Inheritance Problems with Indirect Representations

6-city TSP

P1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 => 1 2 3 4 5 6

P2: 2 3 2 3 2 3 => 2 4 3 6 5 1

Crossover after 2nd gene

K1: 1 1 2 3 2 3 => 1 2 4 6 5 3

Inheritance: 66.6% position, 50% edge

K2: 2 3 1 1 1 1 => 2 4 1 3 5 6

Inheritance: 66.6% position, 33.3% edge

job sequencing problems
Job Sequencing Problems
  • Flow-Shop Scheduling Problem
  • J items to be processed by a system = machine or sequence of machines.
  • Determine proper order to introduce items into the system. Once in the system, its out of the scheduler’s control, so the assembly line is equivalent to a single machine from scheduler’s point of view.
  • Different items may require different operations, with each op type demanding a setup time on a machine => often useful to group similar-op items in the scheduled sequence to reduce number of setups (i.e. Retooling time).
  • Time constraints may make it important that X items are completely processed per day. Hence, some retooling may be necessary.
  • Each work area on the assembly line may be a set of machines, each capable of similar operations. + buffer for waiting items.
  • Similar to TSP:
    • sequence of cities -vs- sequence of items
    • edges important: city distances -vs- retooling times
computer board assembly

Insert

Wire Wrap

Test1

Solder

Test2

Computer Board Assembly

Cleveland & Smith (1989)

15% fail

15% fail

Solution Sequence:

B3,B3,B1,C3,A1,A1,A2,

A2,B1,B1,C1,C1,C1,C1,

C2, D1, A2, A2, A2

Example Problem:

Contract 1: 2xA, 3xB, 4xC, 1xD (due date = 72 hours)

Contract 2: 5xA, 1xC, 2xD (due date = 120 hours)

Contract 3: 2xB, 1xC (due date = 24 hours)

slide39

Weighted Subtour Chunking

  • Cleveland & Smith (1989)
  • Special Subtour operation for job-sequencing problems
  • Same procedure as standard subtour chunking, but:
  • Decision of where to place chunks relative to one another is based on average due dates of jobs in the chunk

Assume (10 4) has later average due date than (6 8 7 1)

  • P1: (9 4 3)32(6 8 7 1)1(5 10)5
  • P2: 3 5 8 (7 10 4 6)2 9 (2 1)4
  • K1: 9 3 5 2 6 8 7 110 4 (10 4) placed after(6 8 7 1)

Knowledge-Intensive genetic operators

  • Semantics (meaning) of the chromosomal bits/integers influence result of crossover.
  • PMX, simple subtour chunking, subtour replacement and most genetic ops on indirect representations are “blind”, purely syntactic.
  • In nature, genetic operations are blind, but GA’s can exploit semantics during crossover & mutation to speed convergence to optimal solutions.
ga vs heuristic methods job sequencing
GA -vs- Heuristic Methods: Job Sequencing

Cleveland & Smith (1989)

Heuristics

EDD: Earliest Due Date jobs released first

SPT: Shortest Processing Time jobs released first

LST: Least Slack Time jobs released first

Slack Time = Due Date - Total Processing Time

  • Table values = costs (earliness and lateness are penalized)
  • Weighted Chunking always among the best performing crossover ops
  • Subtour Replacement among the worst (since it’s often hard to find matching chunks in
  • the two parents)
jssp job shop scheduling problem
JSSP: Job-Shop Scheduling Problem
  • J Jobs to be performed on M machines. Each job consists of M operations, one for each of the machines.
  • The operations must be done in the proper sequence => at time t, no more than one machine can be working on an operation for job j.
  • Operations may require different amounts of time.

NP-Hard Problem => Exponential time required both to find optimal solutions and to verify them.

Search Space Size = (J!)M Choose appropriate job sequence for each machine.

Common Solution Methods

  • Branch & Bound techniques = exhaustive optimizing search with deterministic node pruning. Too expensive for large J & M (> 20)
  • Heuristic search = priority rules resolve choices (of next ops to schedule).

“Satisficing” that often finds optimal solutions, but no guarantee.

More feasible approach to large JSSP problems.

jssp matrices
JSSP Matrices

Machine-Sequence & Processing-Time Matrix

Machine (Processing Time)

Job1 3(1) 1(3) 2(6) 4(7) 6(3) 5(6)

Job2 2(8) 3(5) 5(10) 6(10) 1(10) 4(4)

Job3 3(5) 4(4) 6(8) 1(9) 2(1) 5(7)

Job4 2(5) 1(5) 3(5) 4(3) 5(8) 6(9)

Job5 3(9) 2(3) 5(5) 6(4) 1(3) 4(1)

Job6 2(3) 4(3) 6(9) 1(10) 5(4) 3(1)

* 6x6 Benchmark from Muth & Thompson, “Industrial Scheduling” (1963)

Job-Sequence Matrix

Job

M1 1 4 3 6 2 5

M2 2 4 6 1 5 3

M3 3 1 2 5 4 6

M4 3 6 4 1 2 5

M5 2 5 3 4 6 1

M6 3 6 2 5 1 4

jssp matrices 2
JSSP Matrices (2)
  • Machine Sequence Matrix (Mseq) = sequences of operations (denoted by the # of the machine on which they must be performed) for each job
  • Processing Time Matrix (Tseq) = durations for each operation of each job
  • Job Sequence Matrix (Jseq) = sequences of job operations to be performed on each machine.
  • Schedule = assignment of starting times (on the required machines) to all operations. Often drawn as a Gantt chart.

M1: 111 44444333333333 66666666662222222222555

M2: 2222222244444666111111555 3

M3: 33333312222255555555544444

M4: 3333 666 444111111122225

M5: 2222222222 555553333333444444446666111111

M6: 33333333 66666666622222222225555111444

*Total Time = 55 = minimum makespan

schedule classifications

A

B

C

A

B

C

Schedule Classifications

Complete: All job operations scheduled exactly once.

Feasible: Complete +Satisfies Mseq and Tseq + Some ops may be started earlier without changing the machine’s order of operations

Machine X:

Semi-Active: Feasible + Some ops may be started earlier, but they’ll necessarily

alter the operation order.

“Backward Filling”

Machine X:

Active: Semi-Active + Some ops may be started earlier, but they’ll necessarily

delay other operations.

Machine X:

A

B

C

Moving C delays B

generating schedules simple approaches
Generating Schedules: Simple Approaches

MT: Directly from an Mseq & Tseq (“Left-to-Right packing”)

1. Randomly pick a job, j, and select its leftmost unschedule operation, op.

2. Schedule it on its machine,m, for the earliest time point, t, where:

a. All previously-scheduled operations on m have finished by t

b. All previously-scheduled operations for j have finished by t.

3. Repeat until all job operations have been scheduled.

  • Guaranteed semi-active schedule, but rarely optimal.
  • MTBF : MT with backward filling => active schedules.

MJT: From Mseg, Jseq &Tseq

1. Randomly pick any leftmost unscheduled operation, op, on any machine, m, in Jseq which is also the leftmost unscheduled operation for its job in Mseq.

2. Schedule op on m at earliest time t, where: {same as step 2 above}

3. Repeat until all job operations have been scheduled.

* No guarantees of feasibility, since deadlocks may occur.

scheduling deadlocks
Scheduling Deadlocks

Conflicts between Jseq and Mseq

Job Sequences

Machine1: Job5 Job4

Machine2: Job4 Job5 …

Machine Sequences

Job4: M1 M2

Job5: M2 M1

Deadlock:

M1 wants Job5, but can’t have it until M2 has taken Job5 (according to Mseq). But M2 won’t do Job5 until it does Job4, and Job4 can’t be performed on M2 until it’s performed on M1 (according to Mseq). But Job4 can’t be performed on M1 until Job5 is performed on M1!

giffler thompson algorithm 1960
Giffler & Thompson Algorithm (1960)

GT: Mseq & Tseq => Active Schedules

1. C = set of next schedulable operations for each job

early-start-time = 0 for all ops in C

2. o* = earliest completed task in C

T(C) = completion time of o*

3. G = conflict set= all ops in C on machine(o*) that overlap o* (including o*)

4. Randomly choose o+ from G & schedule it.

5. Add successor(o+) to C

6. Update early-start-time for all ops in C

7. If not empty(C) then goto 2

*Choice points:

step 2: Ties for earliest completed operation

step 4: Multiple conflicts

All combos of choices => all active schedules.

*Also used to convert complete schedules to active schedules

genetic algorithm fitness functions for jssp
Genetic Algorithm Fitness Functions for JSSP

Lin, Goodman & Punch (1997)

wj = Weight for job j dj = Due date for job j

Cj = Completion time for job j rj = Release time for job j

Lj = Lateness of job j = Cj - dj Tj = Tardiness of job j = max(Lj, 0)

Uj = penalty for job j { 1 if late, 0 otherwise}

Ej = Earliness of job j = max (-Lj, 0)

Makespan

Weighted Flow Time

Weighted Tardiness

Maximum Tardiness

Weighted Lateness

Weighted # Tardy Jobs

Weighted Earliness + Weighted Tardiness

*Fitness functions are usually simple inverses of the above metrics

genetic algorithm encoding problems
Genetic Algorithm Encoding Problems

Assume that we want to represent job sequences directly in the GA chromosome

Task

Machine1 1 4 3 6 2 5

Machine2 2 4 6 1 5 3

: : :

MachineM 3 6 2 1 3 4

We could easily convert Jseq into a chromosome:

143625 246153 …362134 => 001100011110010101 ….

But then both randomly-generated chromosomes and the results of crossover may represent illegal schedules:

[143625 246153…. ] X [152634 162534 …] (cross point = after 3rd entry)

=>

[143634 162534….] And [152625 246153…]

Both children are illegal, since they a) advise doing same jobs twice on the same machine, and b) leave out certain jobs.

nakano yamada 1991
Nakano & Yamada (1991)

GA Chromosome:

Pairwise job priorities for all machines

Local

Harmonization

Jseq*

Jseq

Mseq

MJT

Global

Harmonization

Tseq

Deadlock

Feasible Schedule

  • Local Harmonization: Removes single-machine priority conflicts
  • Crossover & Mutation: Standard bitwise
  • Lamarckism: Changes to Jseq in Global Harmonization are back-coded into chromosome
priority based schedule representation 1
Priority-Based Schedule Representation (1)

A job-priority schedule establishes pairwise priorities of jobA over JobB on each of the M machines

Job1 -vs- Job2 : 1 1 0 1 0 0

Job1 -vs- Job3: 0 1 1 0 0 0

: : :

N(N-1)/2 pairs

Job2 has priority over Job1

on Machine M(1,5) = 6

Job1 has priority over Job3 on

Machine M(1,2) = 1

Combine all rows to create a GA chromosome of MN(N-1)/2 bits

110100 011000 110101 001100…….

priority based schedule representation 2
Priority-Based Schedule Representation (2)

Now, neither random schedule generation nor crossover creates illegal pairs of priority. I.e. you never get situations in which Job1 is prioritized over Job2 on machine 4 and Job2 over Job1 on machine 4.

But, triples, quadruples, etc. may be inconsistent :

On Machine 4: job1 > job2 & job2 > job3 & job3 > job1

This set of priorities makes it impossible to establish a unique priority order for machine 4. Hence, we cannot generate a machine schedule (I.e. job sequence) for machine 4.

local harmonization
Local Harmonization

Process for converting illegal genotypes (schedules) into legal job sequences.

1. Convert sequence of pairwise priorities into priority tables for each machine.

2. Establish a strict priority order for each table based on the original priorities

Jobs Sum

Job1 * 0 0 1 1 0 2

Job2 1 * 0 0 1 1 3

Job3 1 1 * 1 1 0 4

Job4 0 1 0 * 0 0 1

Job5 0 0 0 1 * 1 2

Job6 1 0 1 1 0 * 3

Job3 is most dominant, so make it dominant EVERY job. This entails changing entry (6,3) to 0 and (3,6) to 1. This reduces job6’s sum to 2. Hence, job2 is now the only one with sum = 3, so it’s the 2nd most dominant. Change the table so that job2 dominates every job but #3…and so on.until a strict priority order is achieved. Do the same for each machine’s priority table.

global harmonization
Global Harmonization

Local harmonization creates a job sequence for each machine.

Global harmonization is used to remove deadlocks.

Job Sequences

Machine1: Job2 Job6 Job1 Job4* ... Blue => already scheduled

Machine2: Job1 Job 3 Job6 Job5* …

Machine Sequences

Job4: M1 M2

Job5: M2 M1

Deadlock: Job4 wants to run on M1, but J1 is next on M1. Similarly, J5 wants to run on M2, but J3 and J6 are ahead of it. Assume all other jobs are either finished or deadlocked with even longer waits.

Global Harmonization

Swap Jseq jobs to accomodate J4, since it’s closest to being run.

Machine1: Job2 Job6Job4* Job1

Forcing (Lamarckism): Change gtype so that J4 has priority over J1 on M1

shi 1997

List of MxJ Job choices for MTBF

(Job1 Job3 Job5 Job1 Job3 Job2…)

GA Chromosome:

Mseq

MTBF

Tseq

Active Schedule

Shi (1997)

“Schedule next task of Job 3”

  • Lamarckism: When MTBF uses backward filling, it changes job order in the chromosome
  • Job Partition Crossover - Unique subsets of the J jobs taken from each parent.
  • Necessary since kids must have M copies of all J jobs.
  • Mutation: Job swaps or moves within chromosome
job partitioned crossover shi 1997

S1 = {1, 3}

S2 = {2, 4}

J3 J2 J2 J1 J4 J4...

Parent 2

J4 J2 J1 J1 J3 J4...

Parent 1

J2 J1 J2 J1 J3 J4 J4...

Kid

Job-Partitioned Crossover (Shi, 1997)
  • Select non-overlapping subsets S1, S2 of {1,2…J} = S, such that S1 U S2 = S
  • Choose all and only S1 (S2) genes from parent 1 (2) and place in child

* Kid chromosome is guaranteed to have M copies of all J jobs, when parents do

kobayashi ono yamamura 1995
Kobayashi, Ono & Yamamura (1995)

GA Chromosome:

Job Sequence Matrix (Jseq)

Mseq

No harmonization needed, since:

a) init Jseq pop gen’d by GT

b) All kids run through GT

MJT

Tseq

Active Schedule

Subsequence Exchange Crossover (SXX): Only Jseq segments with same jobs

exchanged between parents => kid schedules are complete

Parent Jseq

Kid Jseq

GT

Active Schedule

SXX

Parent Jseq

GT

Kid Jseq

Active Schedule

subsequence exchange crossover sxx
Subsequence Exchange Crossover (SXX)

J2 J3 J5 J1 J4 J6

J4 J1 J2 J3 J6 J5

J3 J2 J1 J6 J5 J4

: : : :

J1 J4 J5 J6 J3 J2

J5 J6 J3 J4 J2 J1

J1 J3 J5 J2 J4 J6

: : : :

  • Swap similar (but permuted) subsets of parent job sequences
  • GT applied to kid Jseqs may result in job swaps within rows

Parent

Jseq2

Parent

Jseq1

SXX

J2 J3 J1 J4 J5 J6

J4 J2 J1 J3 J5 J6

J3 J2 J1 J6 J5 J4

: : : :

J5 J1 J4 J6 J3 J2

J6 J5 J3 J4 J1 J2

J1 J3 J5 J2 J4 J6

: : : :

Kid

Jseq2

Kid

Jseq1

To GT

To GT

lin goodman punch 1997

O+

Parent Schedule 1

GT

Step 4: Select o+

Yes

Active Kid Schedule

O+

Parent Schedule 2

No

T < T* ?

Lin, Goodman & Punch (1997)

GA Chromosome:

Active Schedule

Time Horizon Exchange Crossover (THX): Prior to scheduling time T*, 1st parent’s scheduled ops are used to resolve conflicts. After T*, use 2nd parent.

* Yamada & Nakano (1992) use similar method (GA + GT) but choose parent schedule randomly for each conflict resolution (i.e. O+ selection)

fang ross corne 1993
Fang, Ross & Corne (1993)

List of MxJ Job choices for MTBF

(2 1 3 3 3 4 5 5 1 6 …)

GA Chromosome:

Mseq

“Schedule next task of

5th unfinished job in

the circular job list”

MTBF

Tseq

Active Schedule

  • Gene Variance Based Operator Targeting (GVOT) - choose crossover and mutation
    • points based on population variances of genes.
  • GVOT biases: X-over pt (high variance genes);
        • Mutation (low variance genes)
  • Standard Bitwise Crossover - Possible due to indirect representation
indirect jssp representation fang ross corne 1993
Indirect JSSP Representation (Fang, Ross & Corne, 1993)

Genotype for an J (# jobs) x M (# machines) JSSP:

JM chunks, where each chunk has log2(J) bits.

12321432443212….

“Take the next operation for the 2nd uncompleted job (so this isn’t necessarily job 2) and put it into the earliest place that it will fit in the currently developing schedule.”

Indirect representation since the genes don’t refer to absolute jobs

2232… -vs- 1142

Assuming each job has more than 3 tasks, then these are interpreted as

“Schedule 3rd task of job 2” -vs- “Schedule the 1st task of job 2”

The same position (4) has the same value (2), but it has a different meaning in the two genomes.

Context sensitivity, epistasis: genes interact in determining phenotypes

jssp benchmark comparison
JSSP Benchmark Comparison
  • *All results are makespans from the best runs (red values are optimal)
  • GA with specialized crossover approaches Branch & Bound optimality
  • (with much less searching)
  • Indirect representations (Fang et. Al.) perform well, but slightly worse
    • than most other direct representations
ga search efficiency
GA Search Efficiency

Search Space Size = (J!)M = 3.96 x 1065 for the 10 x 10 JSSP

Can be larger depending upon the GA representation

Typical GA’s above evaluate around 150,000 individuals

E.g. Population size = 1000; # Generations = 150

1.5 x 105 / 3.96 x 1065 = 3.79 x 10-61

= fraction of search space that we need to explore to find a good solution when using GA’s.

Branch & Bound techniques explore a significantly larger portion of the search space.

search spaces

Representation Space (Syntax)

Solution Space (Semantics)

Search Spaces

Completeness: Every point in SS is covered by a point in RS

Soundness: Every point in RS maps to a point in SS

=> Anything generated during RS search is a valid solution

Uniqueness: No 2 points in RS map to the same point in SS.

Translational Determinism: No point in RS maps to more than 1 point in SS

=> The translation of a representation gives the same solution every time

Heritability: Children solutions resemble their parents

direct representations
Direct Representations

Reps wherein genes encode absolute values such that the same spot on the genome encodes the same information, regardless of the values of other genes.

If Position P = A in both chromosomes C1 and C2, then, when converted into phenotypes, C1 and C2 will derive the same characteristic from position P.

+ Phenotypes can be independently read off the genome

+ Genes that converge to particular alleles can only be changed via mutation

- When the genome encodes a sequence of unique values, then crossover can create genomes with illegal interpretations (as phenotypes). Hence, an extra, often time-consuming, step is required to convert the genotypes to legal varieties, e.g. harmonization.

indirect representations
Indirect Representations

Reps wherein genes encode relative values such that the absolute values of genes are dependent upon the values of other (e.g. Earlier) genes.

+ All genotypes represent legal phenotypes.

+ Easier to manipulate. Can perform syntactic operations (mutation ,crossover, etc.) without paying attention to the semantics => crossover is cheap!

- High epistatis (gene interactions) makes GA-based search more difficult. It works against the Building Block Hypothesis.

- False Competition:

Two different gtypes may rep the same (or similar) ptypes, which will compete with one another for repro success, thus reducing the gain of each.

- Low Inheritance via Crossover

Two different genotypes produce similar phenotypes, but crossover produces children with vastly different phenotypes from the parents.

11122212 x 22211112 (cross after 3rd gene)

“Do 4th task of 1, then 4th task of 2”

11111112 x 22222212

“Do 7th task of 1, then 1st task of 2” -vs- “Do 1st task of 1, then 7th task of 2”

summary
Summary
  • When search spaces become too large for exhaustive (Branch & Bound) or too complex for heuristic techniques, GA’s can help.
  • GA cannot guarantee optimality, but good solutions normally found, and search is very efficient.
  • Choice of fitness function is straightforward for most GA scheduling applications
  • Choice of representation is more difficult.
    • One of reps presented above might be useful, but
    • For special problems, a new rep may be needed
    • If it’s a direct representation, then special mutation & crossover ops also needed
ad