Machine Learning in Hybrid Flow Shop Scheduling

with Unrelated Machines

1st Miriam Zacharias
Mathematics for Engineers
University of Duisburg-Essen
Duisburg, Germany
miriam.zacharias@uni-due.de
2nd Annika Tonnius
Mathematics for Engineers
University of Duisburg-Essen
Duisburg, Germany
annika.tonnius@uni-due.de
3rd Johannes Gottschling
Mathematics for Engineers
University of Duisburg-Essen
Duisburg, Germany
johannes.gottschling@uni-due.de

Abstract—Hybrid flow shop (HFS) problems are often encoun-
tered in real world production systems. Despite their practical
relevance, very few generic methods exist to solve HFS problems.
Instead, many approaches either focus on two-stage problems
or the application of simple dispatching rules. Moreover, the
majority of authors assume identical parallel machines, which
reduces the complexity of machine assignment to a large extent.
If a real world case is studied, solution methods are often
customized and not adaptable to other settings. Most common
decomposition approaches are critical path-related or only focus
on possible permutations of job indices while utilizing simple
machine assignment rules [1]. Lately, machine learning (ML)
has been applied to different scheduling problems. A common
application is the selection of best dispatching rules based on
the state of systems parameters. We propose an alternative ML-
based approach to makespan or flowtime minimization that is
suitable for different configurations regarding the number of
stages and number of unrelated machines per stage. To speed up
the scheduling process, we apply ML in one step of our solution
method: We train Neural Networks (NN) and Support Vector Ma-
chines (SVM) with optimal machine assignments and makespan
or flowtime values for fixed batch sizes and randomly generated
processing time matrices. Afterwards, we use the trained NN
and SVM to predict optimal makespan or flowtime values and
machine assignments for all partial job sequences (batches) based
on a given processing time matrix. Only sequences with close-
to-optimal makespan values are evaluated further to determine
a final machine assignment and overall sequence.
Keywords—Hybrid flow shop, unrelated machines, determin-
istic scheduling, divide et impera, machine learning
I. I NTRODUCTION
In a standard HFS manufacturing system J jobs have to
be processed on I stages with each stage containing a subset
Mi (i = 1, . . . , I) out of L machines. Machines arranged at
the same stage perform the same operations but might differ
regarding their speed. A job has to be processed on one of
the available machines at every stage consecutively, starting
at stage 1. A feasible schedule ensures that no job can be
processed by more than one machine at a time and a machine
can only process one job at a time. In the standard form, all
jobs and machines are available at time zero, machines at a
given stage are identical, setup and transportation times are
negligible, preemption is not allowed, the capacity of buffers
between stages is unlimited and problem data are determinis-
tic [1]. The HFS represents an adequate model for several
industrial settings including e.g. the textile industry, cable
manufacturing and electronics manufacturing environment. In
these manufacturing systems, the operating procedure follows
a flow shop and at some stages machines are duplicated
to achieve additional flexibility or to mitigate the impact of
bottleneck stages [2]. A setting example is shown in Fig. 1.
B B
u u
In f f Out
Goods f f Goods
e e
r r
Fig. 1: The hybrid flow shop system.
Furthermore, from a theoretical perspective the HFS gen-
eralizes some fundamental scheduling problems. The special
case of each stage including a single machine only transforms
the HFS to the much studied flow shop scheduling problem. In
the special case where the manufacturing system includes one
single stage, the HFS equals the parallel machine scheduling
problem. Such fundamental relations are often deployed in
decomposition-based solution approaches or while developing
upper and lower bounds [2].
HFS problems are, in most cases, NP-complete. Due to
their complexity and practical relevance, HFS problems have
attracted a lot of attention and a plethora of exact and
approximative solution methods have been proposed. Not only
a permutation of waiting jobs has to be decided on but it
is also necessary to assign each job to one of the available
machines at every stage.[1] A schematic representation of the
underlying decision problem is given in Fig. 2. Using the three
field notation given in [4] the model under consideration can
be classified as a F M m((RM k )m k=1 | prmu | Cmax ∨ F T )
problem. The objective is either the minimization of makespan
(Cmax) or total flowtime (F T ) while on each stage k a
set RM k of non-identical machines is available. As jobs are
assumed to be available at time zero, total flowtime minimiza-
tion equals minimizing the sum of job’s completion times.
The classical HFS scheduling problem assumes machines
to be identical if they are aligned at the same stage. This

978-1-7281-1566-5/19/$31.00 © 2019 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Exeter. Downloaded on June 06,2020 at 21:45:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 l=1 l=1 l=1
TABLE I: Percentage of the reviewed papers according to
number of stages and type of parallel machines [1]
.
jobs N l=2 l=2 l=2 jobs N No. of Stages Machine Environment Total
identical uniform unrelated
l = m1 l = mk l = mm 2 25.12 1.86 4.65 31.63
3 4.19 1.4 0 5.59
Fig. 2: The hybrid flow shop layout [3] m 54.41 1.4 6.97 62.78
Total 83.72 4.66 11.62 100

more specific problem was proven to be NP-complete for

makepan
Cmax-minimization in [5] because it includes the special
cases of the parallel machine problem if we only consider flowtime
21
one stage as well as flow shop problems with at least three 10 lateness
60
stages but only one machine per stage (F3-problem). Both 2 tardiness
problems have been proven to be NP-complete in [6]. F T 2
is a more complex objective function than Cmax and even 4 total/avg. completion or flowtime

the two-stage FS-problem is known to be NP-complete [6]. total/avg. tardiness

The F M m((RM k )m k=1 | prmu | Cmax ∨ F T ) problem
6
number of late jobs
also includes the special case of identical machines so that
NP-completeness can be assumed. This makes it necessary 9
total/avg. weighted completion or
flowtime
to develop approximation algorithms to solve medium and total/avg. weighted tardiness
large instances, as only very small instances can be solved 2 other
11
to optimality within reasonable computation time. Neverthe-
multiple objectives
less, relaxed solutions (e.g. limitation of computation time or
relaxation of binary conditions) can be helpful to validate the total/avg. sum of earliness and
tardiness
performance of approximation algorithms. To contribute to the
gap between scheduling literature and practical applications, Fig. 3: Distribution of objective functions. [1]
in this paper we consider the scheduling problem in a HFS
with unrelated machines. In section 2, a literature review is
carried out, summarizing the state of the art with regards to through simulation studies[8]. Another trend in this stream
problem configurations and solution approaches. After that, of literature are customized hybrid approaches where only
an mixed integer linear programming model is presented that one step of a meta-heuristic is replaced by a ML-algorithm.
provides benchmark solutions for the numerical study. Two Those approaches are again customized to a specific schedul-
new heuristics, the basic heuristic MAJ and an extended ing problem and cannot easily be applied to other settings.
version using ML techniques, are proposed in section 4. We propose an alternative ML-based approach to makespan
Finally, preliminary results are presented in section 5 before minimization, aiming to provide a flexible and fast approach
we come to a first conclusion and point out future scope for
research in section 6.

II. L ITERATURE R EVIEW heuristics

13
For a comprehensive review on HFS literature see [1] and tabu search
[7]. Both reviews state that large scope for future research
exists regarding HFS settings with unrelated machines as well simulated annealing
37
as considering other objectives than makespan (see Tab. I and 15
genetic algorithms
Fig. 3). Furthermore, solution approaches are often customized
to a specific setting so that a lack of generic methods was other
identified (see Fig. 4). Lately, machine learning (ML) has
been applied to different scheduling problems. A common branch and bound
10
application is the selection of best dispatching rules based on
the state of systems parameters. The majority of cases deal mathematical
6 6 programming
with identical parallel machines and small problems, often dispatching rules
8 5
related to Flexible Manufacturing Systems (FMS). Commonly
used algorithms are neural networks (NN), support vector
machines (SVM) or induction-based methods (e.g. decision
trees). Training data for supervised learning is often generated Fig. 4: Distribution of Employed Techniques. [1]

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Exeter. Downloaded on June 06,2020 at 21:45:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 ⎧
which is suitable for different HFS configurations with respect ⎪
⎨1, if job in position k is assigned
to the number of stages and unrelated machines per stage. We Yi,k,l = to machine l at stage i
⎪
⎩
achieve complexity reduction through optimal batching. 0, otherwise

III. M ATHEMATICAL F ORMULATION Alternative objective functions to be chosen:

Using the three field notation proposed by [4] the min Cmax, (1)
model under consideration can be classified as a min F T. (2)
F M m((RM k )m k=1 | prmu | Cmax ∨ F T ) problem.
The objective is either the minimization of Cmax or F T Subject to:
while on each stage k a set RM k of non-identical machines nJ

is available. As jobs are assumed to be available at time zero, Xj,k = 1 ∀j ∈ J, (3)
total flowtime minimization equals minimizing the sum of k=1
job completion times. nJ

We have modified the position-based mixed integer linear Xj,k = 1 ∀k ∈ J, (4)
programming (MILP) model from [9] to solve the HFS j=1
problem with unrelated machines which consists of two Mi (max)

different optimization problems, the sequencing and machine Yi,k,l = 1 ∀i ∈ I, ∀k ∈ J, (5)
assignment problem. For a given job list and processing times l=Mi (1)
matrix, the optimal sequence of jobs, which remains the Tj,i+1 ≥ Tj,i + Pj,l − M · (2 − Xj,k − Yi,k,l ) (6)
same on all m stages, and the optimal machine assignments
for all jobs j at stages 1 to m are determined with respect ∀i = 1, . . . , nI − 1, j, k ∈ J, l ∈ L,
nJ

to the chosen objective function. In total, there exist
n n n
n! · (RM 1 ) · (RM 2 ) · . . . · (RM m ) possible solutions Si,k ≥ Si,t + Xj,t · Pj,l − M · (2 − Yi,k,l − Yi,t,l ) (7)
j=1
to this problem. We are using the following notation to
formulate our mixed integer linear programming (MILP) ∀i ∈ I, l ∈ L, j, k, t ∈ J, k > 1, t < k,
model: Si,k ≥ Tj,i − M · (1 − Xj,k ) ∀i ∈ I, j, k ∈ J, (8)
Si,k ≤ Tj,i + M · (1 − Xj,k ) ∀i ∈ I, j, k ∈ J, (9)
Indices:
Cj,i ≥ Tj,i + Pj,l − M · (2 − Xj,k − Yi,k,l ) (10)
j = 1, . . . , nJ job index ∀i ∈ I, l ∈ L, j, k ∈ J,
k = 1, . . . , nJ position in sequence nJ

i = 1, . . . , nI stage index CSi,k ≥ Si,k + Xj,k · Pj,l − M · (1 − Yi,k,l ) (11)
l = 1, . . . , nL machine index j=1
∀i ∈ I, l ∈ L, k ∈ J,
Parameters and Sets:
Cmax ≥ max(Cj,I ) ∀j ∈ J, (12)
nJ number of jobs nJ

nI number of stages FT ≥ Cj,I (13)
nL total number of machines j=1
J set of jobs Xj,k ∈ {0, 1} ∀j, k ∈ J, (14)
I set of stages Yi,k,l , ∈ {0, 1} ∀i ∈ I, k ∈ J, l ∈ L, (15)
L set of machines
Mi subset of machines at stage i Tj,i ≥ 0 ∀j ∈ J, i ∈ I, (16)
Pj,l processing time of job j on machine l Cj,i ≥ 0 ∀j ∈ J, i ∈ I, (17)
M big number Si,k ≥ 0 ∀i ∈ I, k ∈ J, (18)
CSi,k ≥ 0 ∀i ∈ I, k ∈ J. (19)
Decision Variables:
By using either (1) or (2), the objective function to be
Tj,i starting time of job j on stage i minimized can be selected. Constraint (3) ensures that every
Cj,i completion time of job j on stage i position is only assigned once and (4) enforces that every job is
Si,k starting time of job in position k on stage i only placed in one position. Constraint (5) selects exactly one
CSi,k completion time of job in position k on stage i machine out of the Mi machines available per stage i for every
Cmax maximum completion time (Makespan) job. Constraints (6) and (7) ensure that no job can start being
FT sum of completion times (total Flowtime) processed before it was completed at the previous stage and
1, if job j is in position k the machine has completed the previous job of the sequence.
Xj,k =
0, otherwise With (8) and (9) the reference between job numbers and

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Exeter. Downloaded on June 06,2020 at 21:45:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
positions is implemented. Constraints (10) and (11) guarantee
that the completion times of jobs equal at least the starting
time plus respective processing time on all stages. Finally,
(14) to (19) define the decision variables. As only a fraction of
all test instances can be solved in reasonable time, a relaxed
solution was generated by limiting the computation time to
3600 seconds. Therefore, an upper bound was generated for
both objective functions and for 39 out of 1152 instances the
optimal solution was found.
IV. H EURISTIC A PPROACHES
Due to the complexity of the HFS problem, heuristic ap-
proaches have to be applied to determine good solutions in
reasonable computation time. A new heuristics, namely MAJ,
is proposed that decomposes the underlying problem into
tractable sub problems following the divide et impera strategy
(see Fig. 5). This basic heuristic is extended by utilizing
machine learning algorithms (SVM and NN) replacing the
most time consuming step of MAJ.
Problem:
Schedule
Subproblem:
Sequence
Subproblem:
divide
Job Package 1 … Job Package n
Subproblem:
Machine Assignment
Subproblem: Stage 1
divide
… Subproblem: Stage m
impera
Solution Solution
… …
Subproblem: Stage 1
combine
Subproblem: Stage m
Solution Subproblem:
Job Package 1 … Solution Subproblem:
combine
Solution Subproblem:
Sequence
calculate
Solution Problem:
Schedule
Fig. 5: Divide et Impera approach of MAJ heuristic.
A. MAJ Heuristic
The MAJ heuristic is based on the well-known divide
et impera strategy. The flow diagramm is included in the
appendix (see Fig. 7). A graphical user interface (GUI) for
calling the scheduler HFS-makespan is available. For a
given job processing time matrix (machineTimes) and
stage configuration (machineStages), a close-to-optimal
schedule is provided. A major narrowing of the solution space
is reached by considering batching, so that not all jobs have to
be sequenced one by one but only the optimal sequence of job
packages has to be found.1 How many jobs those job packages
contain (nJobs) will depend on the transport or production
batch size of the company and has to be defined while calling
the function HFS-makespan. The objective function to be
minimized (minimalValue), is also selected in this step.
1 To give an example of the amount of complexity reduction, in a small
HFS with 9 jobs, 3 stages containing 3 machines each, 2.77 · 1018 possible
solutions to the scheduling and machine assignment problem (even if assuming
the same job sequence on all three stages is kept) exist. If only batches, or job
packages, containing 3 jobs have to be scheduled, only 9, 920, 232 solutions
have to be evaluated.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Exeter. Downloaded on June 06,2020 at 21:45:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Furthermore, it has to be decided whether or not major steps
of the heuristic shall be parallelized (par). Depending on
the structure of job processing times it might be useful, with
regards to computation times, to exclude some unreasonable
solutions before starting the computation. This can be done
by activating (red) the pre-processor HFS-ReduceMatrix,
which heuristically excludes a certain amount of job/machine
combinations based on statistical indicators.
A further divide-step (HFS-JobCombinator) is the stage-
wise decomposition while calculating optimal machine assign-
ments for each job package. In this most time-consuming
and crucial step, only the best (+ addStages) machine
assignments per stage are further combined to define the
optimal overall machine assignments per job package. Finally,
a list of optimal machine assignments and corresponding
objective function values for all possible job packages (based
on the given job list) is stored
 in fastestJobBundles.
n
Notice that this list contains nJobs solutions with n being
the total number of jobs. From this list, a disjoint combination
of job packages has to be found so that all jobs are included
and the fastest possible overall solution is achieved.
The last sub-function HFS-JobBundleCombinator exe-
Subproblem:
cutes a heuristic routine of finding disjoint combinations and
evaluating the corresponding objective values to determine the
Subproblem:
Machine Assignment final schedule. The parameter addJobPackages hereby de-
Subproblem: Stage 1
divide
Subproblem: Stage m
fines how many solutions are compared and highly influences
…
impera the computation time.
Solution Solution
Subproblem: Stage 1
combine
Subproblem: Stage m
Summarizing, if all parameters of MAJ would be set to
Job Package n
their respective maximum possible value, a brute-force cal-
culation would be executed. By strategically limiting the
solution space in every step of the heuristic, good quali-
ty solutions in reasonable time can be achieved. Executing
HFS-JobBundleCombinator is the most time-consuming
step so that enhancing it with machine learning algorithms was
considered.
B. MAJ+ML Heuristic
In practical applications, job processing times usually follow
a certain distribution and do not change rapidly if there is no
major change in the production process, machine layout or
product portfolio. This led us to the idea that the underlying
pattern of optimal schedules can be learned and predicted by
machine learning algorithms.
As mentioned before, a time-consuming step of MAJ is the
module HFS-JobCombinator. This step can be replaced
by SVM and NN predictions to accelerate the heuristic. To
do so, we apply SVM and NN regression2 to estimate the
best objective function value for all possible job packages.
The training data stems from saving fastestJobBundles
while executing MAJ heuristic. Afterwards, only the pro-
cessing times of the jobs in a respective package (in vector
form) have to be given as input variables to the regression
model and the ML tools calculate the corresponding objective
2 EIDOminer software was used to built the regression models which
includes a fusion method to combine different ML methods and several
automated parameter and data preprocessing features.[13]
function value for each job package. Based on the predicted
job package objectives, fastest job packages are provided for
HFS-JobBundleCombinator and afterwards the optimal
machine assignments for the selected job packages have to be
determined only.
Initial computational tests show that the accuracy of those
predictions is very high (e.g. 94.9% for a preliminary testbed
using NN) if sufficient training data is available. Furthermore,
predictions can be made in negligible time, even for large
instances, and the ML tools are able to extrapolate, meaning
that training data for e.g. 20 jobs can be used to predict results
for e.g. 80 jobs, if the underlying distribution of job processing
times is not changed.
V. C OMPUTATIONAL S TUDIES
A. Test Data
A benchmark suitable for HFS algorithms with unrelated
machines is presented. Test instances were generated for set-
tings with three to five stages containing one to seven parallel
machines. To provide somewhat representative instances for
real-world problems, normally distributed processing times
were generated following an approach by Watson et al. [10],
assuming job or machine correlation (see Fig. 6). In job-
correlated cases, processing times are largely independent of
the selected machine, whereas in machine-correlated cases, job
processing times are heavily depending on the machine they
are assigned to.
Job Correlation
Job 1
Job Processing Time
computation time. If all parameters are set to their respective
maximum values, a complete enumeration will be executed.
Due to the problem complexity such a brute-force approach is
only feasible for very small instances. For real-world problem
sizes a decision maker is given an estimate for computation
time when setting the parameters through MAJ-GUI. There-
fore, a choice is presented on how much time to be invested in
finding a close-to-optimal solution by adjusting all parameters
accordingly. To evaluate the performance of the proposed
heuristics, we consider different lower and upper bounds. The
well-known NEH heuristic by Nawaz et al. [11] is modified
to provide the first upper bound for the HFS-problem as it
was found to perform well for makespan as well as flowtime
objective. [12] Furthermore, the results of the MILP-model
described in section III, after a limited computation time of
3600 seconds, are taken as an additional upper bound for both
objective functions. Lower bounds for makespan are currently
being developed based on [2].
C. MAJ-Results for Makespan Objective
First, results of the MAJ heuristic are compared to the
above mentioned benchmark solutions at the example of
instances including 3 stages and 50 jobs with a hill machine
configuration. This configuration, where some process step
in the centre of the production requires more capacity than
previous and following steps, can often be found in real-
world systems. An overview of the results is given in Tab.
II. What can be seen is that, in most of the cases, MAJ is
able to improve NEH-solutions and leads to makespan values
Machine Correlation close to the theoretical lower bound from literature. In realistic
scheduling problems it can be assumed that the underlying
Job 1

distribution of job processing times will not change drastically

Job Processing Time

Job 2 Job 2
Job 3 Job 3
during different consecutive planning periods. This allows us
to determine an optimal parameter setting for a given standard
instance so that, after an initial trial period for parameter
setting, even higher improvements can be achieved.
Machine 1 Machine 2 Machine 3 Machine 1 Machine 2 Machine 3

TABLE II: Results of MAJ Heuristic for Makespan Objective

Fig. 6: Examples of job and machine correlation for a three (3 Stages, 50 Jobs, Hill Configuration).
jobs and 3 machines setting [10]. Machines Makespan Makespan
Difference Makespan Difference
NEH vs. MILP MILP vs.
Makespan
Lower
Difference
LB vs.
per Stage MAJ NEH
MAJ in % (3600s) MAJ in % Bound (LB) MAJ in %
[2 4 3] 756.41 778.68 -2.86 761.5 -0.67 747 1.26
Furthermore, machines at stages can follow an ascending, [1 4 1] 1704.70 1704.70 0.00 1701.3 0.20 1701 0.22
[2 5 2] 1372.51 1517.34 -9.54 1399.0 -1.89 1226 11.95
descending, constant, hill or valley pattern. For example, in an [3 5 2] 1273.66 1621.29 -21.44 1297.2 -1.82 1229 3.63
[3 4 3] 1273.22 1308.06 -2.66 1243.1 2.43 1183 7.63
ascending setting, stage 1 contains less machines than stage 2 [2 5 3] 1826.69 1986.71 -8.05 1811.6 0.83 1793 1.88
and so forth and in a hill setting, the first and last stage contain [2
[2
4
4
3]
1]
942.38
3871.31
981.84
3871.31
-4.02
0.00
952.1
3869.6
-1.02
0.04
836
3871
12.72
0.01
less machines than stages in between. Job processing times can
be drawn from a normal distribution with identical mean but
low or high standard deviation or they can be drawn from D. MAJ + ML-Results for Makespan Objective
normal distributions with different means if job families are Although MAJ-results are promising, machine learning is
considered. Overall, for each of the three stage settings, 192 utilized to reduce computation time for larger instances. Pre-
test instances were generated that were then used for makespan liminary results indicate that, on the one hand, quality of
and flowtime minimization. partial makespan predictions through NN or SVM is very high
and, on the other hand, both tools are able to extrapolate well
B. Computational Experiments with respect to the number of jobs. This enables us to use
With the MAJ heuristic’s parameter setting it is possible the same trained model for scheduling larger order volumes
to decide on the trade-off between high quality solutions and if the underlying process is not changed and job processing

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Exeter. Downloaded on June 06,2020 at 21:45:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
TABLE III: Comparison of Makespan values of NEH, MAJ, [8] Priore, Paolo and Gómez, Alberto and Pino, Raúl and Rosillo, Rafael,
and MAJ + ML Heuristics for different Batch Sizes (nJobs). ”Dynamic scheduling of manufacturing systems using machine learning:
nJobs = 4 nJobs = 3 nJobs = 2
An updated review”, AI EDAM, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 83–97, 2014.
No. of NEH MAJ Time MAJ Time MAJ MAJ Time MAJ Time MAJ MAJ Time [9] S. G. B. Naderi, M. Yazdani, ”Hybrid flexible flowshop problems:
Jobs MAJ [sec] + ML + ML [sec] MAJ [sec] + ML + ML [sec] MAJ [sec]
20 430 382 3 384 6 382 0 403 6 406 0
Models and solution methods”, Applied Mathematical Modelling, vol.
40 718 671 319 678 47 677 11 699 23 678 0 38, no. 24, pp. 5767-5780, 2014.
60 1073 967 2827 976 473 692 113 996 29 992 1
80 1453 1251 3914 1276 682 1257 574 1279 93 1279 1
[10] J.-P. Watson, L. Barbulescu, L. D. Whitley, A. E. Howe, ”Contrasting
100 1675 1552 5027 1567 1699 1544 1564 1653 392 1572 2 structured and random permutation flow-shop scheduling problems:
search-space topology and algorithm performance”, INFORMS Journal
on Computing, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 98–123, 2002.
times can therefore be assumed to be drawn from the same [11] M. Nawaz, E. E. Enscore, I. Ham, ”A heuristic algorithm for the m-
machine, n-job flow-shop sequencing problem”, Omega, vol. 11, no. 1,
distribution over time. A first test shows that, after an initial pp. 91–95, 1983.
training phase, MAJ + ML-schedules lead to comparable [12] S. A. Brah, L. L. Loo, ”Heuristics for scheduling in a flow shop with
makespans as MAJ and outperform NEH, whose computation multiple processors”, European Journal of Operational Research, vol.
113, no. 1, pp. 113-122, 1999.
times are negligible (see Tab. III). As more time is invested [13] J. Gottschling, D. Hartmann, ”Generate and preserve Process knowl-
in generating training data (i.e. good MAJ-solutions) and edge Control and optimize with Predictive Analytics and knowledge-
in training the model, solution quality will improve further. based Systems”, https://www.amap.de/fileadmin/files/Kolloquium/29.
Kolloquium/PredictiveAnalytics - English.pdf, retrieved on 2019-10-
This means that if the underlying production process of the 05.
scheduling problem is stable, or in a steady state, MAJ +
ML will lead to good solutions in less time than MAJ. If A PPENDIX
we are dealing with a highly variable process instead, MAJ is
more suitable as good quality solutions can be determined in 'HJUHHRIUHGXFWLRQLQ 3DUDOOHOL]DWLRQRQRII 0DFKLQHVWDJHV 7ROHUDQFH
SUHSURFHVVRU SDU PDFKLQH6WDJHV DGG6WDJHV
reasonable time, depending on the parameter setting. UHG
6L]HRIMRESDFNDJHV 0DWUL[RIRFFXSDQF\WLPHV 7DUJHWYDOXHWRPLQLPL]H
VI. C ONCLUSION AND O UTLOOK Q-REV PDFKLQH7LPHV PLQLPDO9DOXH
+)6B0DNHVSDQ
In this paper two variants of a newly proposed heuristic ,IUHG  ,IUHG 
+)6B5HGXFH0DWUL[
0DWUL[RIDVVLJQPHQWFRPELQDWLRQVRIDOOVWDJHV
were presented. A first idea of how to utilize the advantages of 5HGXFWLRQRIPDFKLQH7LPHV
PDFKLQH$VVLJQPHQWV
,QHIILFLHQWWLPHVJHWWKHYDOXH
ML techniques in scheduling was highlighted and preliminary )RUDOO
2FFXSDQF\WLPHVRIMRE&RPEL 0DWUL[RIMREFRPELQDWLRQV
results seem to be promising. A comprehensive numerical EXQGOH7LPHV
MREFRPELQDWLRQV
MRE&RPEL
MRE&RPELV
study is carried out at the moment and final results will be +)6B-RE&RPELQDWRU
published soon. Future work of the research group will look 'HOHWLRQRIFRPERVFRQWDLQLQJ
)RUDOOFRPELQDWLRQV
0DWUL[RIPDFKLQH
L0DFKLQH$VVLJQPHQWV
at further applications of ML algorithms, e.g. by replacing DVVLJQPHQWVZLWKYDOXH DVVLJQPHQWV
LQPDFKLQH$VVLJQPHQWV
PDFKLQH$VVLJQPHQWV PDWUL[6WDJH
)RUDOOVWDJHVL6WDJH
additional steps of the MAJ heuristic. In addition, extensive &DOFXODWLRQRIPDNHVSDQ
6DYLQJPDFKLQH$VVLJQPHQWVDQG
parameter tuning can be supported by ML tools. Testing both FRUUHVSRQGLQJPDNHVSDQ6WDJH
PDNHVSDQ6WDJH

heuristics on real world data will be an interesting scope for 6SDQ6WDJH 6DYLQJPDWUL[6WDJH
PDWUL[6WDJHV
future work as our preliminary results already show that the
6RUWLQJPDFKLQH$VVLJQPHQWV 5HGXFWLRQRIPDFKLQH$VVLJQPHQWV2QO\URZV
production setting and job processing times distribution highly E\PDNHVSDQ6WDJHLQ ZLWKWKHEHVWPDNHVSDQYDOXHVDQGWKHQH[W
influence the performance of scheduling algorithms. To the 6SDQ6WDJHV DGG6WDJHVURZVDUHUHWDLQHG

best of our knowledge, this relation has not been studied 6DYLQJ0DNHVSDQDQG &DOFXODWLQJWKH )RUDOOFRPELQDWLRQVRI
DVVLJQPHQWVLQ WRWDO0DNHVSDQ DVVLJQPHQWV
extensively for the HFS problem yet. IDVWHVW-RE%XQGOH EXQGOH0DNHVSDQ RIGLIIHUHQWVWDJHVLQFRPERV
)RURQH
R EFERENCES PLQLPDOPDNHVSDQ

[1] R. Ruiz and J. A. Vázquez-Rodrı́guez, ”The hybrid flow shop scheduling 6DYLQJPDNHVSDQDQGDVVLJQPHQWVRIMRESDFNDJHVLQ 6RUWLQJIDVWHVW-RE%XQGOHV
IDVWHVW-RE%XQGOHV E\PDNHVSDQ
problem”, European Journal of Operations Research, vol. 205, pp. 1–18,
7ROHUDQFH )RUWKHILUVWDQGODVWDGG-RE3DFNDJHV
2010. DGG-RE3DFNDJHV
[2] L. Hidri, M. Haouari, ”Bounding strategies for the hybrid flow shop MRESDFNDJHV
+)6B-RE%XQGOH&RPELQDWRU
scheduling problem”, Applied Mathematics and Computation, vol. 217, &RQVLGHUHG 6HOHFWGLVMRLQWMRE 'LIIHUHQFH
no. 21, pp. 8248–8263, 2011. 8QWLOMRE%XQGOH&RPEL SDFNDJHV EHWZHHQ
MRESDFNDJH
LVILOOHG IME'LVMRLQW RFFXSDQF\WLPHV
[3] J. M. Framinan, R. Leisten, R. Ruiz Garcı́a, ”Manufacturing Scheduling IME
RIIMEDQGRIDOO
Systems: An Integrated View on Models, Methods and Tools”, Springer, -RESDFNDJHZLWKODUJHVWWLPHGLIIHUHQFH MRESDFNDJHVLQ
London, 2014. 6DYLQJLQ IME IME'LVMRLQW
[4] A. Vignier and J.-C. Billaut and C. Proust, ”Les problèmes MRE%XQGOH&RPEL WLPH'LII
&DOFXODWHWRWDOPDNHVSDQRI
d’ordonnancement de type flow-shop hybride: état de l’art”, Revue ,IMRE%XQGOH&RPEL MRESDFNDJHFRPELQDWLRQ
francais d’automatique, d’informatique et de recherche opérationnelle, LVILOOHG FRPEL0DNHVSDQ
Recherche opérationnelle, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 117–183, 1999.
[5] C.-Y. Lee, G. L. Vairaktarakis, ”Minimizing makespan in hybrid flow- )RUDOOSDFNDJHFRPELQDWLRQV 6DYLQJLQ )RURQHVPDOOHVW
LQFOXGLQJPDNHVSDQDQGDVVLJQPHQWV PLQ0DNHVSDQV LGHQWLILHGPDNHVSDQ
shops, Operations Research Letters, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 149–158, 1994. PLQ0DNHVSDQ
[6] R. L. Graham, E. L. Lawler, J. K. Lenstra, A. H. G. Rinnooy Kan, ”Opti-
mization and approximation in deterministic sequencing and scheduling: 2XWSXWRIPDNHVSDQZLWK
FRUUHVSRQGLQJPDFKLQH
a survey”, Annals of Discrete Mathematics, vol. 5, pp. 287–326, 1979. DVVLJQPHQWV
[7] I. Ribas and R. Leisten and J. M. Framiñan, ”Review and classification
of hybrid flow shop scheduling problems from a production system and Fig. 7: Flow Chart of MAJ heuristic.
a solutions procedure perspective”, Computers & Operations Research,
vol. 37, pp. 1439–1454, 2010.

Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Exeter. Downloaded on June 06,2020 at 21:45:27 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.