Skip to content
KPI Science News
ISSN 2617-5509 · e‑ISSN 2663-7472 Open Access · CC BY 4.0
Vol. · Issue 4 · 2020 Jun 1, 2020 article

TIGHT-TARDY PROGRESSIVE IDLING-FREE 1-MACHINE PREEMPTIVE SCHEDULING WITH JOB PRIORITY WEIGHTS BY HEURISTIC’S EFFICIENT JOB ORDER INPUT

VR
Vadim V. Romanuke Corresponding Polish Naval Academy, Poland Ukraine
PublishedJun 1, 2020
KPISN 4 VOL · 4
VOL · ISS 4 · 2020 View issue

Abstract

Background. In setting a problem of minimizing total weighted tardiness by the heuristic based on remaining available and processing periods, there are two opposite ways to input the data: the job release dates are given in either ascending or descending order. It was recently ascertained that scheduling a few equal-length jobs is expectedly faster by ascending order, whereas scheduling 30 to 70 equal-length jobs is 1.5 % to 2.5 % faster by descending order. For the number of equal-length jobs between roughly 90 and 250, the ascending job order again results in shorter computation times. In the case when the jobs have different lengths, the significance of the job order input is much lower. On average, the descending job order input gives a tiny advantage in computation time. This advantage decreases as the number of jobs increases. Objective. The goal is to ascertain whether the job order input is significant in scheduling by using the heuristic for the case when the jobs have different lengths with job priority weights. Job order efficiency will be studied on tight-tardy progressive idling-free 1-machine preemptive scheduling. Methods. To achieve the said goal, a computational study is carried out with a purpose to estimate the averaged computation time for both ascending and descending orders of job release dates. First, the computation time for the ascending job order input is estimated for a series of job scheduling problems. Then, in each instance of this series, job lengths, priority weights, release dates, and due dates are reversed making thus the respective instance for the descending job order input, for which computation time is estimated as well. Results. The significance of the job order input is much lower than that for the case of jobs without priorities. With assigning the job priority weights, the job order input becomes further “dithered”, adding randomly scattered priority weights to randomly scattered job lengths and partially randomized due dates. On average, the descending job order input is believed to give a tiny advantage in computation time in scheduling up to 100 jobs. However, this advantage, if any (being tinier than that in the case of random job lengths without priorities), quickly vanishes as the number of jobs increases. Conclusions. It is better to compose job scheduling problems which would be closer to the case with equal-length jobs without priorities, where the saved computational time can be counted in hours. Even if the job lengths and priority weights are scattered, it is recommended to artificially “flatten” them. When artificial manipulations over job processing periods and job priority weights are impossible, it is recommended to use the descending job order input in scheduling up to 100 jobs, and either job order input in scheduling more than 100 jobs, although substantial benefits are not expected in this case.

Keywords

References

  1. V.V. Romanuke, “Efficient exact minimization of total tardiness in tight-tardy progressive single machine scheduling with idling-free preemptions of equal-length jobs”, KPI Sci. News, no. 1, pp. 27–39, 2020. doi: 10.20535/kpi-sn.2020.1.180877
  2. R. Panneerselvam, “Simple heuristic to minimize total tardiness in a single machine scheduling problem”, Int. J. Adv. Manufact. Technol., vol. 30, no. 7–8, pp. 722–726, 2006. doi: 10.1007/s00170-005-0102-1
  3. M. Batsyn et al., “Online heuristic for the preemptive single machine scheduling problem of minimizing the total weighted completion time”, Optimiz. Method. & Software, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 955–963, 2014. doi: 10.1080/10556788.2013.854360
  4. D. Rupanetti and H. Salamy, “Task allocation, migration and scheduling for energy-efficient real-time multiprocessor architectures”, J. Syst. Architec., vol. 98, pp. 17–26, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.sysarc.2019.06.003
  5. V.V. Romanuke, “Tight-tardy progressive idling-free 1-machine preemptive scheduling by heuristic’s efficient job order in-put”, KPI Sci. News, no. 3, pp. 32–42, 2020. doi: 10.20535/kpi-sn.2020.3.199850
  6. F. Jaramillo and M. Erkoc, “Minimizing total weighted tardiness and overtime costs for single machine preemptive scheduling”, Comp. Industr. Eng., vol. 107, pp. 109–119, 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2017.03.012
  7. V.V. Romanuke, “Heuristic’s job order efficiency in tight-tardy progressive idling-free 1-machine preemptive scheduling of equal-length jobs”, KPI Sci. News, no. 2, pp. 64–73, 2020. doi: 10.20535/kpi-sn.2020.2.181869
  8. M.L. Pinedo, Planning and Scheduling in Manufacturing and Services. New York: Springer-Verlag, 2009, 536 p. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-0910-7
  9. V.V. Romanuke, “Job order input for efficient exact minimization of total tardiness in tight-tardy progressive single machine scheduling with idling-free preemptions”, Scientific Papers O. S. Popov Odesa Nat. Academy Telecommun., no. 1, pp. 19–36, 2020. doi: 10.33243/2518-7139-2020-1-1-19-36
  10. V.V. Romanuke, “Total weighted tardiness exact minimization by efficiently inputting jobs to tight-tardy progressive single machine scheduling with idling-free preemptions”, Digital Technol., no. 27, pp. 41–55, 2020.
  11. V.V. Romanuke, “Minimal total weighted tardiness in tight-tardy single machine preemptive idling-free scheduling”, Appl. Comp. Syst., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 150–160, 2019. doi: 10.2478/acss-2019-0019
  12. M. Tamannaei and M. Rasti-Barzoki, “Mathematical programming and solution approaches for minimizing tardiness and transportation costs in the supply chain scheduling problem”, Comp. Industr. Eng., vol. 127, pp. 643–656, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2018.11.003
  13. R.T. Kneusel, Random Numbers and Computers. Springer International Publishing, 2018, 260 p. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-77697-2
  14. S. Vigna, “On the probability of overlap of random subsequences of pseudorandom number generators”, Inform. Process. Lett., vol. 158, ID 105939, 2020. doi: 10.1016/j.ipl.2020.105939
  15. M.H. Ardakani et al., “Sliding dynamic data window: Improving properties of the incremental learning methods”, Comput. Aided Chemical Eng., vol. 40, pp. 1663–1668, 2017. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-63965-3.50279-8
  16. N. Gasmi et al., “Chapter 21 - Nonlinear filtering design for discrete-time systems using sliding window of delayed measurements”, in Stability, Control and Applications of Time-delay Systems. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2019, pp. 423–439. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-814928-7.00021-4
§ 06 — Related

Similar articles in this journal

Related peer-reviewed studies published in this journal.
View all issues

MODIFICATION OF THE SEPARABLE PHYSICS-INFORMED NEURAL NETWORK METHOD FOR THE APPROXIMATE SOLUTION OF A MIXED PROBLEM FOR THE HEAT CONDUCTION EQUATION IN AN ELLIPTICAL DOMAIN

Valerii Los, Oleksandr Riakhin

Background. Parabolic differential equations are mathematical models in engineering designed to study wide range of applied models. This necessitates the development of…

#heat conduction equation #mixed parabolic problem #elliptical domain #physics-informed neural network
10.20535/kpisn.2026.3.367316

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Similar Articles

1-10 of 192

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.