Compromise in scheduling objects procedures basing on ranking lists

• Autorzy: Piech H. , Skibińska W.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

In our work possibility of support of ranking objects (tasks) is analyzed on base of group of lists. We can get these lists both from experts or with help of approximating and simple (according to complexity) algorithms. To support analyze we can use elements of neighborhood theory, preferential models, and rough sets theory. This supporting process is used for creation final list of tasks sequence. Usually, these problems are connected with distribution, classification, prediction, strategy of games as well as compromise searching operations. The utilization preference and domination models permits to crisp inferences and to force the chronological location of object. In some situations we have deal with dynamic character of filling lists resulting from continuous tasks succeeding and continuous their assigning to executive elements. The utilization the theory of neighborhood permits to locate objects in range of compromised solutions consist in closing to dominating proposal group. Main task for us is find the best compromise in aspect to final objects location. We want to defined advantages and drawback of methods basing on mention theories and analyze possibilities of their cooperation or mutual completions.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

discrete optimization; ranking lists; compromise estimation

PL

dyskretna optymalizacja

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Częstochowskiej
• Czasopismo: Prace Naukowe Instytutu Matematyki i Informatyki Politechniki Częstochowskiej
• Rocznik: 2010
• Tom: Vol. 9, nr 1
• Strony: 177--186
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 21 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Piech H.

autor

Skibińska W.

• Institute of Computer and Information Science, Czestochowa University of Technology, Poland,

Bibliografia

• [1] Błażewicz J., Lenstra J.K., Rinnooy Kan A.H.G., Scheduling subject to resource constrains: Classification and complexity, Discrete Appl. Math. 1983, 5, 11-24.
• [2] Greco S., Matarazzo B., Słowiński R., Axiomatic characterization of a general utility function and its particular cases in terms of conjoint measurement and rough sets decision rules, European J. of Operational Research 2003.
• [3] Greco S., Matarazzo B., Słowiński R., Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis, European J. of Operational Research 2001, 129, 1-47.
• [4] Piech H., Analysis of possibilities and effectiveness of combine rough set theory and neibourhood theories for solving dynamic scheduling problem, IEEE Computer Society, P3674, Washington, Tokyo 2009, 296-302.
• [5] Conway R.W., Maxwell, W.L., Miller L.W., Theory of Scheduling, Addision-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1954.
• [6] Pawlak Z., Sugeno M., Decision Rules Bayes, Rule and Rough, New Decisions in Rough Sets, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1999.
• [7] Skowron A., Extracting lows from decision tables, Computational Inteligence 1995, 11(2), 371-388.
• [8] Szwarc W., Permutation flow-shop theory revised, Math. Oper. Res. 1978, 25, 557-570.
• [9] Greco S., Matarazzo B., Słowiński R., Extension of rough set approach to multicriteria decision support, INFOR 2000, 38, 161-196,.
• [10] Jaroń J., Systemic Prolegomena to Theoretical Cybernetics, Scient. Papers of Inst. of Techn. Cybernetics 25, Wrocław 1975.
• [11] Kohler W.H., A preliminary evolution of the critical path method for scheduling tasks on multiprocessor systems, IEEE Trans. Comput. 1975, 24, 1235-1238.
• [12] Brzezińska I., Greco S., Słowiński R., Mining Pareto-optimal rules wth respect to support and anti-suport. Engeniering Applications of Artificial Inteligence 2007, 20(5), 587-600.
• [13] Nikodem J., Autonomy and cooperation as factors dependability in wireless sensor network, IEEE Computer Society P3179, 406-413, 2008-08-09
• [14] Finch H.A., Confirming power of observations metricized for decisions among hypotheses, Philosophy of Science 1999, 27, 391-404.
• [15] Kleinberg J., Navigation in a small words, Nature 2000, 406, 845.
• [16] Greco S., Matarazzo B., Słowiński R., Stefanowski J., An algorithm for induction of decision rules with dominance principle, Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing, LNAI, Springer-Verlag, Berlin 2005, 304-313.
• [17] Sysło M.M., Deo N., Kowalik J.S., Algorytmy optymalizacji dyskretnej, WN PWN, Warszawa 1995.
• [18] Słowiński R., Brzezińska I., Greco S., Application of Bayesian Confirmation Measures for Mining Rules from Suport Confidence Pareto Optimal Set, ICAISC LNSC, 4029, Springer, Heilderberg 2006, 1018-1026.
• [19] Talbi E.D., Geneste L., Grabot B., Prévitali R., Hostachy P., Application of optimization techniques to parameter set-up in scheduling, Computers in Industry 2004, 55, 2, October, 105-124.
• [20] Pawlak Z., Rough Sets. Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about date, Kluwer, Dordrecht 1991.
• [21] Kent R.E., Rough concept analysis: A synthesis of rough sets and formal concept analysis, Fundamanta Informaticae 1996, 27, 169-181.