job assignment heuristic

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence

Title: a job-assignment heuristic for lifelong multi-agent path finding problem with multiple delivery locations.

Abstract: In this paper we proposed multiple job-assignment heuristics to generate low-total-cost solutions and determine the best performing method amongst them.

Submission history

Access paper:, references & citations.

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

DBLP - CS Bibliography

Bibtex formatted citation.

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

Subscribe to the PwC Newsletter

Join the community, edit social preview.

Add a new code entry for this paper

Remove a code repository from this paper, mark the official implementation from paper authors, add a new evaluation result row.

• MULTI-AGENT PATH FINDING

Remove a task

Add a method, remove a method, edit datasets, a job-assignment heuristic for lifelong multi-agent path finding problem with multiple delivery locations.

25 Apr 2020  ·  Semiz Fatih , Polat Faruk · Edit social preview

In this paper we proposed multiple job-assignment heuristics to generate low-total-cost solutions and determine the best performing method amongst them.

Code Edit Add Remove Mark official

Tasks edit add remove, datasets edit, results from the paper edit add remove, methods edit add remove.

Hyper-Heuristic Coevolution of Machine Assignment and Job Sequencing Rules for Multi-Objective Dynamic Flexible Job Shop Scheduling

Ieee account.

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

A heuristic for single machine common due date assignment problem with different earliness/tardiness weights

• Theoretical Article
• Published: 28 April 2023
• Volume 60 , pages 1561–1574, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Oğuzhan Ahmet Arik   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7088-2104 1  

159 Accesses

Explore all metrics

This paper considers the common due date assignment for single machine weighted earliness/tardiness scheduling problem with different earliness and tardiness weights for jobs where the objective is to minimize the cost of the sum of weighted earliness/tardiness and assignment common due date. The single machine common due date assignment problem where all jobs have the same earliness/tardiness weight has a polynomial-time algorithm to solve it optimally. Furthermore, some properties for the problem where the common due date is an input have been revealed by researchers in the literature. This paper proposes a heuristic algorithm for the problem using the revealed properties of similar problems’ optimal solutions such as the V-shaped property and zero-start time of the machine. The experimental study of this paper shows that the proposed heuristic finds better solutions for the problems in a reasonable time than a commercial solver has when the problem size is increased.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Healthcare scheduling in optimization context: a review

Zahraa A. Abdalkareem, Amiza Amir, … Abdelaziz I. Hammouri

A scenario-based robust optimization model for the sustainable distributed permutation flow-shop scheduling problem

Amir M. Fathollahi-Fard, Lyne Woodward & Ouassima Akhrif

Review of job shop scheduling research and its new perspectives under Industry 4.0

Jian Zhang, Guofu Ding, … Jianlin Fu

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Arık, O.A., Schutten, M., Topan, E.: Weighted earliness/tardiness parallel machine scheduling problem with a common due date. Expert Syst. Appl. 187 , 115916 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ESWA.2021.115916

Article   Google Scholar  

Panwalkar, S.S., Smith, M.L., Seidmann, A.: Common due date assignment to minimize total penalty for the one machine scheduling problem. Oper. Res. 30 , 391–399 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.30.2.391

Hall, N.G., Posner, M.E.: Earliness-tardiness scheduling problems, I: weighted deviation of completion times about a common due date. Oper. Res. 39 , 836–846 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.39.5.836

Kanet, J.J.: Minimizing the average deviation of job completion times about a common, due date. Nav. Res. Logist. Q. 28 , 643–651 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.3800280411

Raghavachari, M., Zammouri, M.: Single machine scheduling with coefficient of variation minimization. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 62 , 302–310 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(92)90120-X

Bector, C.R., Gupta, Y.P., Gupta, M.C.: V-shape property of optimal sequence of jobs about a common due date on a single machine. Comput. Oper. Res. 16 , 583–588 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(89)90043-9

Raghavachari, M.: A V-shape property of optimal schedule of jobs about a common due date. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 23 , 401–402 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(86)90306-1

Arık, O.A.: Single machine earliness/tardiness scheduling problem with grey processing times and the grey common due date. Grey Syst. Theory Appl. 11 , 95–109 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1108/gs-01-2020-0010

Cheng, T.C.E., Gupta, M.C.: Survey of scheduling research involving due date determination decisions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 38 , 156–166 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(89)90100-8

Elion, S.: Production scheduling. In: Haley, K.B. (ed.) Operations Research ’78, pp. 237–266. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam (1979)

Google Scholar  

Gordon, V., Proth, J.-M., Chu, C.: A survey of the state-of-the-art of common due date assignment and scheduling research. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 139 , 1–25 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00181-3

Seidmann, A., Panwalkar, S.S., Smith, M.L.: Optimal assignment of due-dates for a single processor scheduling problem. Int. J. Prod. Res. 19 , 393–399 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1080/00207548108956667

Cheng, T.C.E.: An alternative proof of optimality for the common due-date assignment problem. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 37 , 250–253 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(88)90334-7

Sung, C.S., Min, J.I., Park, C.K.: Heuristic algorithms for a single-machine common due date assignment under earliness/tardiness measure. J. Oper. Res. Soc. Jpn. 36 , 121–133 (1993)

Koulamas, C.: Common due date assignment with generalized earliness/tardiness penalties. Comput. Ind. Eng. 109 , 79–83 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.04.040

De, P., Ghosh, J.B., Wells, C.E.: Optimal delivery time quotation and order sequencing. Decis. Sci. 22 , 379–390 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1540-5915.1991.TB00353.X

Koulamas, C.: A unified solution approach for the due date assignment problem with tardy jobs. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 132 , 292–295 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJPE.2011.04.023

Kahlbacher, H.G., Cheng, T.C.E.: Parallel machine scheduling to minimize costs for earliness and number of tardy jobs. Discrete Appl. Math. 47 , 139–164 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-218X(93)90088-6

Li, S.-S., Chen, R.-X.: Scheduling with common due date assignment to minimize generalized weighted earliness–tardiness penalties. Optim. Lett. 14 , 1681–1699 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11590-019-01462-5

Shabtay, D., Mosheiov, G., Oron, D.: Single machine scheduling with common assignable due date/due window to minimize total weighted early and late work. Eur. J. Oper. Res. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJOR.2022.02.017

Yeung, W.K., Oguz, C., Cheng, T.C.E.: Single-machine scheduling with a common due window. Comput. Oper. Res. 28 , 157–175 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0548(99)00097-0

De, P., Ghosh, J.B., Wells, C.E.: Due-date assignmentand early/tardy scheduling on identical parallel machines. Nav. Res. Logist. 41 , 17–32 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6750(199402)41:1<17::AID-NAV3220410103>3.0.CO;2-X

Cheng, T.C., Chen, Z.-L.: Parallel-machine scheduling problems with earliness and tardiness penalties. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 45 , 685–695 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.1994.106

Diamond, J.E., Cheng, T.C.E.: Error bound for common due date assignment and job scheduling on parallel machines. IIE Trans. Insti. Ind. Eng. 32 , 445–448 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007644826949

Mosheiov, G.: A common due-date assignment problem on parallel identical machines. Comput. Oper. Res. 28 , 719–732 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0548(99)00127-6

Xiao, W.-Q., Li, C.-L.: Approximation algorithms for common due date assignment and job scheduling on parallel machines. IIE Trans. Inst. Ind. Eng. 34 , 466–477 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1080/07408170208928883

Mosheiov, G., Yovel, U.: Minimizing weighted earliness-tardiness and due-date cost with unit processing-time jobs. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 172 , 528–544 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.10.021

Min, L., Cheng, W.: Genetic algorithms for the optimal common due date assignment and the optimal scheduling policy in parallel machine earliness/tardiness scheduling problems. Robot Comput. Integr. Manuf. 22 , 279–287 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcim.2004.12.005

Drobouchevitch, I.G., Sidney, J.B.: Minimization of earliness, tardiness and due date penalties on uniform parallel machines with identical jobs. Comput. Oper. Res. 39 , 1919–1926 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2011.05.012

Kim, J.-G., Kim, J.-S., Lee, D.-H.: Fast and meta-heuristics for common due-date assignment and scheduling on parallel machines. Int. J. Prod. Res. 50 , 6040–6057 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2011.644591

Xiong, X., Wang, D., Cheng, E., Wu, T.C., Yin, C.-C.: Single-machine scheduling and common due date assignment with potential machine disruption. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 , 1345–1360 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1346317

Ng Daniel, C.T.D., Cheng, T.C.E., Kovalyov, M.Y., Lam, S.S.: Single machine scheduling with a variable common due date and resource-dependent processing times. Comput. Oper. Res. 30 , 1173–1185 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0548(02)00066-7

Keha, A.B., Khowala, K., Fowler, J.W.: Mixed integer programming formulations for single machine scheduling problems. Comput. Ind. Eng. 56 , 357–367 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CIE.2008.06.008

Biskup, D., Feldmann, M.: Benchmarks for scheduling on a single machine against restrictive and unrestrictive common due dates. Comput. Oper. Res. 28 , 787–801 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0548(00)00008-3

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Industrial Engineering Department, Nuh Naci Yazgan University, Kayseri, 38170, Turkey

Oğuzhan Ahmet Arik

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

OAA designed the investigated problem and he contributed to the design of the proposed algorithm and experimental study in the paper. OAA also edited and wrote the paper. OAA read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oğuzhan Ahmet Arik .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication, additional information, publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Arik, O.A. A heuristic for single machine common due date assignment problem with different earliness/tardiness weights. OPSEARCH 60 , 1561–1574 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-023-00652-1

Download citation

Accepted : 16 April 2023

Published : 28 April 2023

Issue Date : September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-023-00652-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Common due date assignment
• Single machine

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Skip navigation

World Leaders in Research-Based User Experience

How to conduct a heuristic evaluation.

June 25, 2023 2023-06-25

• Email article
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Twitter

A  heuristic evaluation is a method for identifying design problems in a user interface. Evaluators judge the design against a set of guidelines (called heuristics) that make systems easy to use.

(For more information about how and why this tool was developed, read Jakob Nielsen's 1994 article, "The Theory Behind Heuristic Evaluations". )

In This Article:

Choosing a set of heuristics, when to conduct a heuristic evaluation, step 1: prepare for a heuristic evaluation, step 2: evaluate independently, step 3: consolidate identified issues.

A heuristic evaluation can be conducted with any set of heuristics. To assess usability, we recommend  Jakob Nielsen’s 10 usability heuristics  — a set of high-level guidelines based on an understanding of human behavior, psychology, and information processing. For specialized domains or types of usability assessments, you may consider using other domain-specific ones in addition.

Heuristic evaluations are useful for identifying glaring problems in an interface. That interface can be just about anything that users will interact with — including prototypes, physical products,  games ,  virtual reality , or  voice interfaces.  The method can be particularly helpful early in the design process. 

Heuristic evaluations are  useful for stretching a limited UX research budget,  because they help you find likely issues without having to test with participants. 

However,  heuristic evaluations cannot replace user research . User-experience design is  highly contextual . To design good experiences, you’ll still need to test with actual users. But heuristic  evaluations can complement your team’s research  work; for example, conducting a heuristic evaluation in preparation for an upcoming usability test might help you identify the elements of the design that you should target during testing.

Conducting heuristic evaluations is also a good way to  develop strong UX instincts.  If you’re new to UX, consider using heuristic evaluations as a way to train yourself to catch common usability issues. Practice conducting these evaluations on many different types of products — whether you actually work on them or not. 

Choose and Train Your Team

Heuristic evaluations work best when performed by a group of people, not just by one evaluator. This is because each individual (no matter how experienced or expert) is likely to miss some of the potential usability issues. Ideally,  three to five people should independently evaluate  the same interface.

Teams conducting their first heuristic evaluation will need a bit of  training and preparation  before they begin. Start by asking each person to read and understand the  heuristics .

Next, consider doing a  practice round  with a simple design as a group. You might conduct a collaborative evaluation of a weather app, for example. The point of this practice round is to ensure that everyone on the team understands what they’re expected to do during an evaluation (more details on this in step 2.)

Decide How to Document Evaluations

Your evaluators will need a place to collect their observations. You might use:

• Our heuristic-evaluation workbook : Each team member can fill out a printed or digital version of this interactive PDF.  Download our free workbook   to use it in your evaluation.
• A spreadsheet:  Evaluators can capture one observation per line, along with its corresponding heuristic.
• A digital whiteboard:  In a tool like Miro or Mural, create separate workspaces for each evaluator. Include screenshots of the interface and have evaluators place sticky notes directly on the elements they’re analyzing. 

If you choose to use a shared document or space (like Google Sheets or a digital-whiteboard tool),  your team members should not see each other’s evaluations until their own evaluation is complete . The point of having multiple evaluators is to capture independent observations, so you don’t want team members to influence each other.

Set the Scope

The  narrower the scope,  the easier and more detailed the evaluation will be. For your team’s first heuristic evaluation — or if you have a large, complex product — consider keeping your scope narrow to make things manageable. 

Narrow your scope by looking at:

• One task at a time
• One section of the site or app
• One user group, if you have many with diverse needs
• One device type (desktop, tablet, mobile)

Next, each team member should evaluate the interface on their own.

It’s important to timebox this activity to make it manageable. We recommend reserving about  1–2 hours.

Become Familiar with the Product

Let’s consider a simple ecommerce example to explain how the evaluation might work.

Product:  Banana Republic site User Group:  Shoppers Task:  Buying a shirt Device:  Mobile

Start the evaluation by moving through the interface as if you’re a user trying to complete a task. If you aren’t already familiar with this product,  go through the task once just to learn  the system, without attempting to evaluate anything.

Look for Issues 

Once you feel comfortable and familiar with the product, go back through the task a second time. In this second pass, look for  design elements, features, or decisions that violate one of the  10 heuristics   — in other words, they don’t achieve that goal or follow that guideline. If you’re using our heuristic-evaluation template, those will be the things you write down in the appropriate  Issues  section.

For example, one of the 10 heuristics is  aesthetic and minimalist design (#8) . This heuristic recommends that the visual design of interfaces should direct users’ attention and help them achieve their goals. The product should not feel visually overwhelming or distracting.

Banana Republic’s  listing pages  layer the product details (name, price, discount) in white text directly on top of the product images. As a result, the page feels cluttered, and the text is difficult to read. This is an example of how the visual design fails to support the user’s task (choosing and buying a shirt).

In the heuristic evaluation workbook, we might write “Text overlaps with product images on listing pages” in the issues column for heuristic #8. If a recommendation for a fix comes to mind, you can note that in the second column under  Recommendations.  For example, “Improve product-detail visibility — maybe add a solid or semi-opaque background behind text.”

Another heuristic is  recognition rather than recall (#6) . As much as possible in the design, we want to reduce the burden on people’s short-term memory by keeping important information visible on the screen. 

We might notice that Banana Republic is using a  hamburger menu  as their global navigation — their navigation categories are hidden behind a menu icon in the upper left-hand corner. We might decide to document that as a violation of heuristic #6.

This example brings up something important to note:  just because a design choice violates a heuristic, that does not necessarily mean it’s a problem  that needs to be fixed —  it depends  on the particular context and the available alternatives.  Hamburger menus do violate heuristic #6 , but, in mobile designs, that  tradeoff  is often necessary due to reduced screen space. 

This is a great illustration of why  heuristic evaluations are not a replacement for user research.  We still need to observe our users as they are using our products to fully understand design problems.

Once all your team members have performed their independent evaluations, it’s time to synthesize the issues.  Affinity diagramming  (clustering similar issues) on a physical or virtual whiteboard can work well.

Discuss with your team:

• Where do we agree? Where do we disagree?
• Which issues seem most detrimental to the overall experience? 
• Which issues could be most problematic for our organization or business goals?
• Which issues do we need more data on? Which should we prioritize in our next  usability test?
• What steps can we take in the short and long term to address these problems? 

There are exceptions to these heuristics, but they’re typically rare and based on context. Heuristics are guidelines, not laws, and there are some cases where you may have to violate a heuristic in pursuit of another goal (as was the case with Banana Republic’s hamburger menu).

But,  as Jakob Nielsen says , “you should not bet that your design is one of the few exceptions.” Before deciding to intentionally violate a usability heuristic, conduct user research to ensure your rule breaking is justified. 

Heuristic evaluations become easier the more you conduct them. With practice, you’ll need to rely less and less on the actual heuristics. You’ll start to develop UX instincts, so you can quickly recognize potential usability problems.

Nielsen, J., and Molich, R. (1990). Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces,  Proc. ACM CHI'90 Conf.  (Seattle, WA, 1-5 April), 249-256.

Nielsen, J. (1994). Heuristic evaluation. In Nielsen, J., and Mack, R.L. (Eds.),  Usability Inspection Methods . John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Nielsen, J., and Landauer, T. K. 1993. A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems.  Proceedings ACM/IFIP INTERCHI'93 Conference  (Amsterdam, The Netherlands, April 24-29), 206-213.

Free Downloads

Related courses, ux basic training.

Foundational concepts that everyone should know

Interaction

Related Topics

• Heuristic Evaluation Heuristic Evaluation

Learn More:

The UX of Phone Trees

Tanner Kohler · 5 min

Discount Usability Revisited (Jakob Nielsen Keynote)

Jakob Nielsen · 36 min

Heuristic Evaluation of User Interfaces

Jakob Nielsen · 3 min

Related Articles:

Evaluate Interface Learnability with Cognitive Walkthroughs

Kim Salazar · 8 min

Match Between the System and the Real World (Usability Heuristic #2)

Anna Kaley · 5 min

Memory Recognition and Recall in User Interfaces

Raluca Budiu · 8 min

10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design

Jakob Nielsen · 8 min

Theatre Arts