Google Scholar

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published
Jun 14, 2015
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 71 Download : 36

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Abstract

Several types of evolutionary algorithms (EAs) have been applied to solve the project scheduling problem (PSP).  The  performance of these EAs highly depends on design choices for the EA. Based on the dedications of particular tasks the employee can work on multiple jobs simultaneously. This consist of normalizing employees’ dedication for different tasks to ensure they are not working overtime; a fitness function that requires fewer pre-defined parameters and provides a clear gradient towards feasible solutions; and an improved representation and mutation operator. Both the theoretical and empirical findings show that the  design is very effective. A repair mechanism is  that which  facilitates the search for feasible schedules without overwork. Their repair mechanism considers the maximum total dedication of any employee at any point of time during the generated schedule. the problem of overwork can be alleviated and hence  can remove a crucial obstacle in the search process of EAs by using the following an approach : normalisation. Combining the use of normalization to a population gave the best results in the experiments, and normalization was a principle insight for the practical effectiveness of the existing system. Existing system concludes that normalisation is not always effective. The proposed work is based on comparison of an earlier technique used in this area called ‘repair mechanism’. Proposing the collaboration of both techniques to arrive at the best optimal solutions for the PSP and at the end testing the feasibility of the proposed idea. 

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Author Biographies

Volga Benjamin F., Marian Engineering College, Trivandrum Kerala University

M.Tech in CSE

Jose Hormese, Marian Engineering College, Trivandrum

Associate Professor in CSE
How to Cite
F., V. B., & Hormese, J. (2015). Improving Evolutionary Algorithm Design for Complex Real Time Problems. International Journal of Emerging Trends in Science and Technology, 2(06). Retrieved from http://igmpublication.org/ijetst.in/index.php/ijetst/article/view/728

References

1. L.L. Minku, D. Sudholt, and X. Yao, “Evolutionary Algorithms for the Project Scheduling Problem: Runtime Analysis and Improved Design,” Proc. 14th Int’ l Conf. Geneticand Evolutionary Computation Conf. (GECCO 12), pp. 1221-1228, 2012.
2. M. Di Penta, M. Harman, and G. Antoniol, “The Use of Search-Based Optimization Techniques to Schedule and Staff Software Projects: An Approach and an Empirical Study,” Software: Practice and Experience, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 495-519, 2011.
3. E. Alba and J.F. Chicano, “Software Project Management with GAs,” Information Sciences, vol. 177, pp. 2380-2401, 2007.
4. F. Luna, D. Gonz_alez- _ Alvarez, F. Chicano, and M.A. Vega Rodrıguez, “On the Scalability of Multi-Objective Metaheuristics for the Software Scheduling Problem,” Proc. 11th Int’l Conf. Intelligent System Design and Applications (ISDA ’11), pp. 1110- 1115, 2011.
5. J. Ren, M. Harman, and M. Penta, “Cooperative Co-Evolutionary Optimization of Software Project Staff Assignments and Job Scheduling,” Proc. Third Int’l Conf. Search Based Software Eng., vol. 6956, pp. 127-141, 2011.
6. D. Sudholt, “A New Method for Lower Bounds on the Running Time of Evolutionary Algorithms,” IEEE Trans. Evolutionary Computation, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 418-435, June 2013.
7. C. Grosan and A. Abraham, “Hybrid Evolutionary Algorithms:Methodologies, Architectures, and Reviews”
8. Zbigniew Michalewicz “Evolutionary Algorithms for Real-World Applications ”, School of Computer Science University of Adelaide Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
9. Benjamin Doerr, Sebastian Pohl, “Run-Time Analysis of the (1+1) Evolutionary Algorithm Optimizing Linear Functions Over a Finite Alphabet”, Max Planck Institute for Computer Science, Campus E1 4, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany
10. Carl K. Chang, Chikuang Chao, Thinh T. Nguyen, Mark Christensen, “Software Project Management Net: A New Methodology on Software Management ”
11. Gareth Jones,” Genetic and Evolutionary Algorithms”, University of Sheffield, UK
12. Leandro L. Minku and Xin Yao, “Software Effort Estimation as a Multi-objective Learning Problem ” The University of Birmingham
13. Ruiz-Vanoye Jorge A. Universidad Popular Autónoma del Estado de Puebla, Mexico, Pathiyamattom-Joseph Sebastian , Centro de Investigación en Energía, Mexico. Fernández-Medina Miguel A., Fuentes-Penna Alejandro Universidad Popular Autónoma del Estado de Puebla, Mexico, Díaz-Parra Ocotlán Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos, Mexico. “Project Scheduling Problem for Software Development Library - PSPSWDLIB ”
14. Stefan Droste ∗, Thomas Jansen, Ingo Wegener,” On the analysis of the (1 + 1) evolutionary algorithm ” ,FB Informatik, LS 2, Universitat Dortmund, 44221 Dortmund, Germany, February 2001
15. Pietro S. Oliveto Jun He Xin Yao ,” Time Complexity of Evolutionary Algorithms for Combinatorial Optimization: A Decade of Results ”, The Center of Excellence for Research in Computational Intelligence and Applications (CERCIA), School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK, July 2007
16. Leandro L. Minku, Dirk Sudholt, and Xin Yao, Fellow, IEEE, “Improved Evolutionary Algorithm Design for the Project Scheduling Problem Based on Runtime Analysis ”, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, VOL. 40, NO. 1, JANUARY 2014