Journals / An International Journal of Optimization and Control: Theories & Applications (IJOCTA) / 2021 / Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2

Performance comparison of approximate dynamic programming techniques for dynamic stochastic scheduling

Pages
178–185
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Numerical results reveal that the direct search-based ADP outperforms others in the majority of problem sets generated.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper focuses on the performance comparison of several approximate dynamic programming (ADP) techniques.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In particular, we evaluate three ADP techniques through a class of dynamic stochastic scheduling problems: Lagrangian-based ADP, linear programming-based ADP, and direct search based ADP.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Numerical results reveal that the direct search-based ADP outperforms others in the majority of problem sets generated.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This paper focuses on the performance comparison of several approximate dynamic programming (ADP) techniques. In particular, we evaluate three ADP techniques through a class of dynamic stochastic scheduling problems: Lagrangian-based ADP, linear programming-based ADP, and direct search based ADP. We uniquely implement the direct search-based ADP through basis functions that differ from those used in the relevant literature. The class of scheduling problems has the property that jobs arriving dynamically and stochastically must be scheduled to days in advance. Numerical results reveal that the direct search-based ADP outperforms others in the majority of problem sets generated.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÖÇGÜN, Y. (2022). Performance comparison of approximate dynamic programming techniques for dynamic stochastic scheduling. An International Journal of Optimization and Control: Theories & Applications (IJOCTA), Cilt: 11 - Sayı: 2, 178–185. https://ajindex.com/articles/440555

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Gocgun, Y., & Ghate, A. (2012). Lagrangian relaxation and constraint generation for allocation and advance scheduling. Computers & Operations Research, 39, 2323-2336
  2. Parizi, M. S., & Ghate, A. (2016). Multi-class, multi-resource advance scheduling with noshows, cancellations and overbooking. Computers & Operations Research, 67, 90-101
  3. Patrick, J., Puterman, M. L., & Queyranne, M. (2008). Dynamic multi-priority patient scheduling for a diagnostic resource. Operations Research, 56, 1507-1525
  4. Saure, A., Patrick, J., Tyldesley, S., & Puterman, M. L. (2012). Dynamic multiappointment patient scheduling for radiation therapy. European Journal of Operational Research, 223, 573-584
  5. Maxwell, M.S., Henderson, S. G., & Topaloglu, H. (2013). Tuning approximate dynamic programming policies for ambulance redeployment via direct search. Stochastic Systems, 3(2), 322-361
  6. Gocgun, Y. (2018). Dynamic scheduling with cancellations: An application to chemotherapy appointment booking. An International Journal of Optimization and Control: Theories and Applications, 8, 2, 161-169
  7. Powell, W. B. (2007). Approximate dynamic programming: solving the curses of dimensionality, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA: John Wiley and Sons
  8. De Farias, D.P. & Roy, B.V. (2003). The linear programming approach to approximate dynamic programming. Operations Research, 51, 850-865
  9. De Farias, D. P. & Roy, B. V. (2004). On constraint sampling in the linear programming approach to approximate dynamic programming. Mathematics of Operations Research, 29(3), 462–478
  10. Shechter, S. M., Ghassemi, F., Gocgun, Y., & Puterman, M. L. (2015). Technical note – trading off quick versus slow actions in optimal search. Operations Research, 63(2), 353–362
  11. Gocgun, Y. (2019). Approximate dynamic programming for optimal search with an obstacle. Selcuk University Journal of Engineering, Science, and Technology, 7, 80-95
  12. Gocgun, Y., & Ghate, A. (2010). A Lagrangian approach to dynamic resource allocation. Proceedings of the Winter Simulation Conference, 3330-3338
  13. Yin, J., Tang, T., Yang, L., Gao, Z., & Ran, B. (2016). Energy-efficient metro train rescheduling with uncertain time-variant passenger demands: an approximate dynamic programming approach. Transportation Research, Part B, 91, 178-210
  14. Wang, Y., O’Donoghue, B., & Boyd, S. (2015). Approximate dynamic programming via iterated bellman inequalities. International Journal of Robust and Nonli