The teaching–learning-based optimisation (TLBO) algorithm is a population-based metaheuristic inspired on the teaching–learning process observed in a classroom. It has been successfully used in a wide range of applications. In this study, the authors present a variant version of TLBO. In the proposed version, different weights are assigned to students during the student phase, with higher weights being assigned to students with better solutions. Three different approaches to assign weights are investigated. Numerical experiments with benchmark instances of the flow-shop and the job-shop scheduling problems are carried out to investigate the performance of the proposed approaches. They compare the proposed approaches with the original TLBO algorithm and with two variants of TLBOs proposed in the literature in terms of solution quality, convergence speed and simulation time. The results obtained by the application of a Friedman statistical test showed that the proposed approaches outperformed the original version of TLBO in terms of convergence, with no significant losses in the average makespan. The additional simulation time required by the proposed approaches is small. The best performance was achieved with the approach of assigning a fixed weight to half the students with the best solutions and assigning zero to other students.

References

1. 1)
  - [38]. Pandey, H.M.: ‘Performance evaluation of selection methods of genetic algorithm and network security concerns’, Procedia Comput. Sci., 2016, 78, pp. 13–18 (doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2016.02.004).
2. 2)
  - [4]. Dorigo, M.: ‘Optimization, learning and natural algorithms’. Politecnico di Milano, Italy, 1992.
3. 3)
  - 17. Rao, R.V., Savsani, V.J., Vakharia, D.P.: ‘Teaching–learning-based optimization: a novel method for constrained mechanical design optimization problems’, Comput.-Aided Des., 2011, 43, (3), pp. 303–315 (doi: 10.1016/j.cad.2010.12.015).
4. 4)
  - [29]. Bouzidi, A., Riffi, M.E.: ‘Cat swarm optimization to solve flow shop scheduling problem’, J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol., 2015, 72, (2), pp. 239–243.
5. 5)
  - [19]. Binato, S., Hery, W.J., Loewenstern, D.M., et al: ‘A GRASP for job shop scheduling’, inCelso, C.R., Pierre, H. (Eds.): ‘Essays and surveys on metaheuristics’ (Kluwer Academic Publishers, USA, 2000), pp. 59–79.
6. 6)
  - [21]. Baburao, P., Kumar, R.A., Balamurugan, G., et al: ‘A non-dominated sorting TLBO algorithm for multi-objective short-term hydrothermal self-scheduling of GENCOs in a competitive electricity market’, Int. J. Comput. Sci. Eng., 2018, 6, (8), pp. 191–203.
7. 7)
  - [36]. Giffler, B., Thompson, G.L.: ‘Algorithms for solving production-scheduling problems’, Oper. Res., 1960, 8, (4), pp. 487–503 (doi: 10.1287/opre.8.4.487).
8. 8)
  - [24]. Kumar, M., Mittal, M.L., Soni, G., et al: ‘A hybrid TLBO-TS algorithm for integrated selection and scheduling of projects’, Comput. Ind. Eng., 2018, 119, pp. 121–130 (doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2018.03.029).
9. 9)
  - [2]. Kennedy, J., Eberhart, R.C.: ‘Particle swarm optimization’. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Neural Networks, Perth, Australia, 1995, pp. 1942–1948.
10. 10)
  - 25. Derrac, J., Garcia, S., Molina, D., et al: ‘A practical tutorial on the use of nonparametric statistical tests as a methodology for comparing evolutionary and swarm intelligence algorithms’, Swarm Evol. Comput., 2011, 1, (1), pp. 3–18 (doi: 10.1016/j.swevo.2011.02.002).
11. 11)
  - 7. Cheng, T., Chen, M., Fleming, P.J., et al: ‘A novel hybrid teaching learning based multi-objective particle swarm optimization’, Neurocomputing, 2017, 222, pp. 11–25 (doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2016.10.001).
12. 12)
  - [15]. Rao, R.V., Patel, V.: ‘An improved teaching–learning-based optimization algorithm for solving unconstrained optimization problems’, Scientia Iranica, 2013, 20, pp. 710–720.
13. 13)
  - [13]. Zou, F., Wang, L., Hei, X., et al: ‘Teaching–learning-based optimization with dynamic group strategy for global optimization’, Inf. Sci., 2014, 273, pp. 112–131 (doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2014.03.038).
14. 14)
  - [26]. Rao, R.V.: ‘Review of applications of TLBO algorithm and a tutorial for beginners to solve the unconstrained and constrained optimization problems’, Decis. Sci. Lett., 2016, 5, pp. 1–30.
15. 15)
  - [35]. French, S.: ‘Sequencing and scheduling: an introduction to the mathematics of the job shop’ (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chichester, 1987).
16. 16)
  - [37]. Rodrigues, L.R., Gomes, J.P.P., Oliveira, S.A.F., et al: ‘Improving the computational efficiency of teachingat–learning based optimization for job shop scheduling problems by eliminating unnecessary objective function calls’. Proc. Brazilian Symp. Operational Research (SBPO), Blumenau, Brazil, 2017, pp. 1969–1980.
17. 17)
  - [9]. Rodrigues, L.R., Gomes, J.P.P., Rocha Neto, A.R., et al: ‘A modified symbiotic organisms search algorithm applied to flow shop scheduling problems’. 2018 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2018, pp. 1–7.
18. 18)
  - [6]. Baykasoğlu, A., Hamzadayi, A., Köse, S.Y.: ‘Testing the performance of teaching learning based optimization (TLBO) algorithm on combinatorial problems: flow shop and job shop scheduling cases’, Inf. Sci., 2014, 276, pp. 204–218 (doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2014.02.056).
19. 19)
  - [11]. Rao, R.V., Patel, V.: ‘An elitist teaching–learning based optimization algorithm for solving complex constrained optimization problems’, Int. J. Ind. Eng. Comput., 2012, 3, pp. 535–560.
20. 20)
  - [17]. Chen, D., Zou, F., Wang, J., et al: ‘A teaching–learning-based optimization algorithm with producer–scrounger model for global optimization’, Soft Comput., 2015, 19, (3), pp. 745–762 (doi: 10.1007/s00500-014-1298-5).
21. 21)
  - [20]. Kiziloz, H.E., Deniz, A., Dokeroglu, T., et al: ‘Novel multiobjective TLBO algorithms for the feature subset selection problem’, Neurocomputing, 2018, 306, pp. 94–107 (doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2018.04.020).
22. 22)
  - [32]. Cruz-Chavez, M.A., Martinez-Rangel, M.G., Hernandez, J.A., et al: ‘Scheduling algorithm for the job shop scheduling problem’. Electronics, Robotics and Automotive Mechanics Conf. (CERMA 2007), Morelos, Mexico, 2007, pp. 336–341.
23. 23)
  - [16]. Chen, D., Zou, F., Li, Z., et al: ‘An improved teaching–learning-based optimization algorithm for solving global optimization problem’, Inf. Sci., 2015, 297, pp. 171–190 (doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2014.11.001).
24. 24)
  - [40]. Friedman, M.: ‘The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance’, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 1937, 32, (200), pp. 675–701 (doi: 10.1080/01621459.1937.10503522).
25. 25)
  - [7]. Rao, R.V., Savsani, V.J., Vakharia, D.P.: ‘Teaching–learning-based optimization: an optimization method for continuous non-linear large scale problems’, Inf. Sci., 2012, 183, pp. 1–15 (doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2011.08.006).
26. 26)
  - [8]. Farahani, H.F., Aghaei, J., Rashidi, F.: ‘Optimal power flow of HVDC system using teaching–learning-based optimization algorithm’, Neural Comput. Appl., 2017, 30, (12), pp. 3781–3789 (doi: 10.1007/s00521-017-2962-3).
27. 27)
  - [12]. Chen, D., Lu, R., Zou, F., et al: ‘Teaching–learning-based optimization with variable-population scheme and its application for ANN and global optimization’, Neurocomputing, 2016, 173, (Part 3), pp. 1096–1111 (doi: 10.1016/j.neucom.2015.08.068).
28. 28)
  - [39]. Montgomery, D.C.: ‘Design and analysis of experiments’ (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005, 6th edn.).
29. 29)
  - [3]. Holland, J.H.: ‘Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis with applications to biology, control and artificial intelligence’ (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1992).
30. 30)
  - [31]. Šeda, M.: ‘Mathematical models of flow shop and job shop scheduling problems’, Int. J. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci., 2007, 4, (4), pp. 241–246.
31. 31)
  - [1]. Rardin, R.L., Uzsoy, R.: ‘Experimental evaluation of heuristic optimization algorithms: a tutorial’, J. Heuristics, 2001, 7, (3), pp. 261–304 (doi: 10.1023/A:1011319115230).
32. 32)
  - [41]. Friedman, M.: ‘A comparison of alternative tests of significance for the problem of m rankings’, Ann. Math. Stat., 1940, 11, (1), pp. 86–92 (doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177731944).
33. 33)
  - [14]. Keesari, H.S., Rao, R.V.: ‘Optimization of job shop scheduling problems using teaching–learning-based optimization algorithm’, Opsearch, 2014, 51, (5), pp. 545–561 (doi: 10.1007/s12597-013-0159-9).
34. 34)
  - [22]. Lin, W., Wang, L., Tian, G., et al: ‘MTLBO: a multi-objective multi-course teaching–learning-based optimization algorithm’, J. Appl. Sci. Eng., 2018, 21, (3), pp. 331–342.
35. 35)
  - [27]. Aruna, S., Kalra, S.: ‘Review of the teaching learning based optimization algorithm’, Indian J. Comput. Sci. Eng., 2017, 8, (3), pp. 319–323.
36. 36)
  - [10]. Chacko, S., Anand, M.: ‘Learning of RBF network by using teaching–learning based optimization (TLBO) algorithm’, Int. J. Eng. Comput. Sci., 2017, 6, (4), pp. 20813–20819 (doi: 10.18535/ijecs/v6i4.03).
37. 37)
  - [25]. Dokeroglu, T.: ‘Hybrid teaching–learning-based optimization algorithms for the quadratic assignment problem’, Comput. Ind. Eng., 2015, 85, pp. 86–101 (doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2015.03.001).
38. 38)
  - [28]. Mastrolilli, M., Svensson, O.: ‘Improved bounds for flow shop scheduling’ (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009), pp. 677–688.
39. 39)
  - [33]. Hart, E., Sim, K.: ‘A hyper-heuristic ensemble method for static job-shop scheduling’, Evol. Comput., 2016, 24, (4), pp. 609–635 (doi: 10.1162/EVCO_a_00183).
40. 40)
  - [18]. Sabuncuoglu, I., Bayiz, M.: ‘Job shop scheduling with beam search’, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 1999, 118, (2), pp. 390–412 (doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00319-1).
41. 41)
  - [30]. Amirghasemi, M., Zamani, R.: ‘An effective evolutionary hybrid for solving the permutation flow shop scheduling problem’, Evol. Comput., 2017, 25, (1), pp. 87–111 (doi: 10.1162/EVCO_a_00162).
42. 42)
  - [34]. Gonçalves, J.F., Mendes, J.J.M., Resende, M.G.C.: ‘A hybrid genetic algorithm for the job shop scheduling problem’, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 2005, 167, (1), pp. 77–95 (doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2004.03.012).

TLBO with variable weights applied to shop scheduling problems

References

Related content