skip to main content
research-article
Free Access

Multi-user Remote Lab: Timetable Scheduling Using Simplex Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm

Authors Info & Claims
Published:08 April 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

The scheduling of multi-user remote laboratories is modeled as a multimodal function for the proposed optimization algorithm. The hybrid optimization algorithm, hybridization of the Nelder-Mead Simplex algorithm, and Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (NSGA), named Simplex Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm (SNSGA), is proposed to optimize the timetable problem for the remote laboratories to coordinate shared access. The proposed algorithm utilizes the Simplex algorithm in terms of exploration and NSGA for sorting local optimum points with consideration of potential areas. SNSGA is applied to difficult nonlinear continuous multimodal functions, and its performance is compared with hybrid Simplex Particle Swarm Optimization, Simplex Genetic Algorithm, and other heuristic algorithms. The results show that SNSGA has a competitive performance to address timetable problems.

References

  1. Seid Miad Zandavi, Zexi Hu, Yuk Ying Chung, and Ali Anaissi. 2019. Augmented reality vision improving educational learning. Aust. J. Intell. Inf. Process. Syst. 15, 3 (2019), 49–58.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Mahmoud Abdulwahed, Zoltan K. Nagy, Richard E. Blanchard, et al. 2008. Beyond the classroom walls: Remote labs, authentic experimentation with theory lectures. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education: To Industry and Beyond. Institution of Engineers, Australia, 435.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. V. Judson Harward, Jesus A. Del Alamo, Steven R. Lerman, Philip H. Bailey, Joel Carpenter, Kimberley DeLong, Chris Felknor, James Hardison, Bryant Harrison, Imad Jabbour, et al. 2008. The ilab shared architecture: A web services infrastructure to build communities of internet accessible laboratories. Proc. IEEE 96, 6 (2008), 931–950.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. David Lowe, Stephen Conlon, Steve Murray, Lothar Weber, Michel De La Villefromoy, Euan Lindsay, Andrew Nafalski, Warren Nageswaran, and Tee Tang. 2012. LabShare: Towards cross-institutional laboratory sharing. In Internet Accessible Remote Laboratories: Scalable E-learning Tools for Engineering and Science Disciplines. IGI Global, 453–467.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Jing Ma and Jeffrey V. Nickerson. 2006. Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Comput. Surveys 38, 3 (2006), 7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Christophe Gravier, Jacques Fayolle, Bernard Bayard, Mikael Ates, and Jeremy Lardon. 2008. State of the art about remote laboratories paradigms-foundations of ongoing mutations. Int. J. Online Eng. 4, 1 (2008), http–www.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Nawat Nuntasen and Supachate Innet. 2007. Application of genetic algorithm for solving university timetabling problems: A case study of Thai universities. UTCC Engineering Research Papers.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Clemens Nothegger, Alfred Mayer, Andreas Chwatal, and Günther R. Raidl. 2012. Solving the post enrolment course timetabling problem by ant colony optimization. Ann. Oper. Res. 194, 1 (2012), 325–339.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Der-Fang Shiau. 2011. A hybrid particle swarm optimization for a university course scheduling problem with flexible preferences. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 1 (2011), 235–248.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Ioannis X. Tassopoulos and Grigorios N. Beligiannis. 2012. A hybrid particle swarm optimization-based algorithm for high school timetabling problems. Appl. Soft Comput. 12, 11 (2012), 3472–3489.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Leena N. Ahmed, Ender Özcan, and Ahmed Kheiri. 2015. Solving high school timetabling problems worldwide using selection hyper-heuristics. Expert Syst. Appl. 42, 13 (2015), 5463–5471.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Sener Akpinar. 2016. Hybrid large neighbourhood search algorithm for capacitated vehicle routing problem. Expert Syst. Appl. 61 (2016), 28–38.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Jian Li, Panos M. Pardalos, Hao Sun, Jun Pei, and Yong Zhang. 2015. Iterated local search embedded adaptive neighborhood selection approach for the multi-depot vehicle routing problem with simultaneous deliveries and pickups. Expert Syst. Appl. 42, 7 (2015), 3551–3561.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Amin Jamili, Mohammad Ali Shafia, Seyed Jafar Sadjadi, and Reza Tavakkoli-Moghaddam. 2012. Solving a periodic single-track train timetabling problem by an efficient hybrid algorithm. Eng. Appl. Artific. Intell. 25, 4 (2012), 793–800.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Safaai Deris, Sigeru Omatu, Hiroshi Ohta, and Puteh Saad. 1999. Incorporating constraint propagation in genetic algorithm for university timetable planning. Eng. Appl. Artific. Intell. 12, 3 (1999), 241–253.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Seid Miad Zandavi and Vera Chung. 2019. State estimation of nonlinear dynamic system using novel heuristic filter based on genetic algorithm. Soft Comput. 23, 14 (2019), 5559–5570.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Shu-Kai S Fan, Yun-chia Liang, and Erwie Zahara. 2004. Hybrid simplex search and particle swarm optimization for the global optimization of multimodal functions. Eng. Optimiz. 36, 4 (2004), 401–418.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Shu-Kai S Fan, Yun-Chia Liang, and Erwie Zahara. 2006. A genetic algorithm and a particle swarm optimizer hybridized with Nelder–Mead simplex search. Comput. Industr. Eng. 50, 4 (2006), 401–425.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Seid Miad Zandavi. 2017. Surface-to-air missile path planning using genetic and PSO algorithms. J. Theoret. Appl. Mech. 55, 3 (2017), 801–812.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Seid Miad Zandavi, Vera Yuk Ying Chung, and Ali Anaissi. 2019. Stochastic dual simplex algorithm: A novel heuristic optimization algorithm. IEEE Trans. Cybernet. (2019), 1--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. S. H. Pourtakdoust and S. M. Zandavi. 2016. A hybrid simplex non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm for multi-objective optimization. Int. J. Swarm Intell. Evolution. Comput. 5, 3 (2016), 1–11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Seid Miad Zandavi and Seid H. Pourtakdoust. 2018. Multidisciplinary design of a guided flying vehicle using simplex nondominated sorting genetic algorithm II. Struct. Multidisc. Optimiz. 57, 2 (2018), 705–720.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Natércia Lima, Clara Viegas, and Francisco José García-Peñalvo. 2019. Different didactical approaches using a remote lab: Identification of impact factors. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje 14, 3 (2019), 76–86.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Clara Viegas, Ana Pavani, Natércia Lima, Arcelina Marques, Isabel Pozzo, Elsa Dobboletta, Vanessa Atencia, Daniel Barreto, Felipe Calliari, André Fidalgo, et al. 2018. Impact of a remote lab on teaching practices and student learning. Comput. Edu. 126 (2018), 201–216.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. S. M. Zandavi and V. Chung. 2018. Augmented reality for remote laboratory improving educational learning: Using elevated particle swarm optimization in object tracking scheme. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN’18). 1–6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Singiresu S. Rao. 2009. Engineering Optimization: Theory and Practice. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Hadi Nobahari, Seid Miad Zandavi, and Hamed Mohammadkarimi. 2016. Simplex filter: A novel heuristic filter for nonlinear systems state estimation. Appl. Soft Comput. 49 (2016), 474–484.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Nidamarthi Srinivas and Kalyanmoy Deb. 1994. Muiltiobjective optimization using nondominated sorting in genetic algorithms. Evolution. Comput. 2, 3 (1994), 221–248.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Rachid Chelouah and Patrick Siarry. 2003. Genetic and nelder–mead algorithms hybridized for a more accurate global optimization of continuous multiminima functions. Eur. J. Operation. Res. 148, 2 (2003), 335–348.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Rachid Chelouah and Patrick Siarry. 2000. Tabu search applied to global optimization. Eur. J. Operation. Res. 123, 2 (2000), 256–270.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Rachid Chelouah and Patrick Siarry. 2000. A continuous genetic algorithm designed for the global optimization of multimodal functions. J. Heurist. 6, 2 (2000), 191–213.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Pyari Mohan Pradhan and Ganapati Panda. 2012. Solving multiobjective problems using cat swarm optimization. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 3 (2012), 2956–2964.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Jesus Moises Osorio Velazquez, Carlos A. Coello Coello, and Alfredo Arias-Montano. 2014. Multi-objective compact differential evolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Differential Evolution (SDE’14). IEEE, 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Hossein Hemmatian, Abdolhossein Fereidoon, and Ehsanolah Assareh. 2014. Optimization of hybrid laminated composites using the multi-objective gravitational search algorithm (MOGSA). Eng. Optimiz. 46, 9 (2014), 1169–1182.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Xiangui Shi and Dekui Kong. 2015. A multi-objective ant colony optimization algorithm based on elitist selection strategy.Metallurg. Mining Industry6 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Emrah Hancer, Bing Xue, Mengjie Zhang, Dervis Karaboga, and Bahriye Akay. 2015. A multi-objective artificial bee colony approach to feature selection using fuzzy mutual information. In Proceedings of the IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC’15). IEEE, 2420–2427.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

(auto-classified)
  1. Multi-user Remote Lab: Timetable Scheduling Using Simplex Nondominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in

            Full Access

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader

            HTML Format

            View this article in HTML Format .

            View HTML Format
            About Cookies On This Site

            We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

            Learn more

            Got it!