2:08 a.m.
Hi,
I need to group a number of entities together and I'm not sure if my rule is optimal.
My planning entities represent maintenance tasks on airplanes.
Every planning entity is a discreet task (check tires, refuel, check engines...) but the
maintenance of an airplane exists of a number of these tasks and they need to be grouped
together.
Every task has a duration depending on its type (checking engine takes longer than
checking tires).
The optimal solution is that all tasks of a maintenance are in the smallest amount of time
(time between start of first task till end of last task).
Though, the smaller the better, at least all tasks should be sequential (without gaps
between the tasks).
Dependencies on the tasks are availability of the plain, availability of the
technicians...
(The rules beneath only check that the tasks are chained together, not (yet) that the time
span is minimal => I thought to make a soft-constraint for that).
First I had this rule:
rule "tasksInSameMaintenanceJobMustBeChained"
when
$task : Task( $jobId: jobId )
not ( Task( jobId== $jobId, id != $task.id, ($task.startPeriodId-1) <=
endPeriodId && ($task.endPeriodId+1) >= startPeriodId ) )
then // we have a gap!
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameMaintenanceJobMustBeChained",
ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_HARD, Importance.chainedPeriod, $jobId, $task));
end
After adding this rule I started struggling with what I believe is to be a score trap.
After advice from Geoffrey and reading some more, I thought my rule suffered from having a
penalty which did not change depending on the amount of spread of the tasks.
So I rewrote the task to:
(I have now put all MaintenanceJobs into the working memory and I created a Class
TaskSet() which is capable of calculating the nr of periods between all tasks of a job =
gapCount)
rule "tasksInSameMaintenanceJobMustBeChained"
when
$job: MaintenanceJob()
$taskset : TaskSet( gapCount > 0 )
from accumulate( $task : Task(jobId== $job.id),
init( TaskSet taskset = new TaskSet(); ),
action( taskset.addTask( $task ); ),
reverse( taskset.removeTask( $task ); ),
result( taskset ) );
then
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameMaintenanceJobMustBeChained",
ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_HARD, Importance.chainedPeriod * $taskset.getGapCount(), $job,
$taskset));
end
I see a difference in score but still not optimal and terminated on time limit reached.
1) Is this rule as good as it can be? Or am I creating some issue here?
A Task (planning entity) has 3 different planning variables.
2) When I analyze the Trace logging I see that during the first steps the 3 variables are
switched during moves, but then after a while only one of the 3 variables gets changed and
the other variables of all tasks remain as they are.
Should I conclude something out of that?
This is my local search config:
<localSearch>
<termination>
<terminationCompositionStyle>OR</terminationCompositionStyle>
<maximumSecondsSpend>3600</maximumSecondsSpend>
<scoreAttained>0hard/0soft</scoreAttained>
</termination>
<unionMoveSelector>
<changeMoveSelector>
<valueSelector>
<!-- ** -->
<planningVariableName>role</planningVariableName>
</valueSelector>
</changeMoveSelector>
<changeMoveSelector>
<valueSelector>
<!-- entity var technician:who will execute the task -->
<planningVariableName>technician</planningVariableName>
</valueSelector>
</changeMoveSelector>
<changeMoveSelector>
<valueSelector>
<!-- entity var period: when will the plane get maintenance
-->
<planningVariableName>period</planningVariableName>
</valueSelector>
</changeMoveSelector>
<swapMoveSelector>
</swapMoveSelector>
</unionMoveSelector>
<acceptor>
<!-- 3 => small amount of planning entities in unit test -->
<planningEntityTabuSize>3</planningEntityTabuSize>
</acceptor>
<forager>
<minimalAcceptedSelection>1000</minimalAcceptedSelection>
</forager>
</localSearch>
(**) entity var role: every maintenance job has one lead task (role == lead),
all other tasks in that job must have role = member. The technician
assigned to the lead task will file the maintenance report.
One of the constraints (checked in other rule) is that no technician should be
lead-technician twice in a row on two sequential maintenance jobs.
Thanks in advance.
Michiel
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
3:48 p.m.
Hello Michiel,
Wolfgang Laun pointed me to your question.
I believe we have discussed this type of challenge with Wolfgang during
our drools meet-up some weeks ago.
So far I see two possible causes for your challenge:
1. Your domain problem requires weighted or even Pareto score
calculation (check out drools planner doc "5.1.2. Positive and negative
constraints"). In praxis I often use some function or magic number to
weigh one constraint against another;
2. You indeed might have a score trap. The suggestion of Geoffrey is
correct in this case, but your solution might not. I presume that
gapCount is not sufficient to avoid score trap.
Consider this scenario (where [t] = task and - = time unit)
[t]-----------[t]-[t]-[t]-[t] = 4 (gapCount)
[t]-[t]-[t]-[t]-[t] = 4 (gapCount)
In this case you would have to penalize gaps based on distance between
two tasks.
If you are considering distance, then consider this scenario
[t]-----------[t]-[t]-[t]-[t] = 14 (sum of time units in between)
[t]---[t]----[t]----[t]---[t] = 14 (sum of time units in between)
If this is the case, you can use a function (e.g. power, square-root,
natural logarithm) that penalize the distances in a non-linear way (the
further, the more penalty).
I find that the weighing of the soft constraints is a real PITA not
because of the way drools planner support it, but because of the nature
of the constraint weighing itself.
I hope it helps you to move on with your issue and thanks to Wolfgang
for pointing your message out and recognizing similarity of the problem.
br
Reinis
On 01/23/2013 09:08 AM, Michiel Vermandel wrote:
Hi,
I need to group a number of entities together and I'm not sure if my
rule is optimal.
My planning entities represent maintenance tasks on airplanes.
Every planning entity is a discreet task (check tires, refuel, check
engines...) but the maintenance of an airplane exists of a number of
these tasks and they need to be grouped together.
Every task has a duration depending on its type (checking engine takes
longer than checking tires).
The optimal solution is that all tasks of a maintenance are in the
smallest amount of time (time between start of first task till end of
last task).
Though, the smaller the better, at least all tasks should be
sequential (without gaps between the tasks).
Dependencies on the tasks are availability of the plain, availability
of the technicians...
(The rules beneath only check that the tasks are chained together, not
(yet) that the time span is minimal => I thought to make a
soft-constraint for that).
First I had this rule:
rule "tasksInSameMaintenanceJobMustBeChained"
when
$task : Task( $jobId: jobId )
not ( Task( jobId== $jobId, id != $task.id,
($task.startPeriodId-1) <= endPeriodId && ($task.endPeriodId+1) >=
startPeriodId ) )
then // we have a gap!
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameMaintenanceJobMustBeChained",
ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_HARD, Importance.chainedPeriod, $jobId, $task));
end
After adding this rule I started struggling with what I believe is to
be a score trap.
After advice from Geoffrey and reading some more, I thought my rule
suffered from having a penalty which did not change depending on the
amount of spread of the tasks.
So I rewrote the task to:
(I have now put all MaintenanceJobs into the working memory and I
created a Class TaskSet() which is capable of calculating the nr of
periods between all tasks of a job = gapCount)
rule "tasksInSameMaintenanceJobMustBeChained"
when
$job: MaintenanceJob()
$taskset : TaskSet( gapCount > 0 )
from accumulate( $task : Task(jobId== $job.id),
init( TaskSet taskset = new
TaskSet(); ),
action( taskset.addTask( $task ); ),
reverse( taskset.removeTask( $task
); ),
result( taskset ) );
then
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameMaintenanceJobMustBeChained",
ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_HARD, Importance.chainedPeriod *
$taskset.getGapCount(), $job, $taskset));
end
I see a difference in score but still not optimal and terminated on
time limit reached.
1) Is this rule as good as it can be? Or am I creating some issue here?
A Task (planning entity) has 3 different planning variables.
2) When I analyze the Trace logging I see that during the first steps
the 3 variables are switched during moves, but then after a while
only one of the 3 variables gets changed and the other variables of
all tasks remain as they are.
Should I conclude something out of that?
This is my local search config:
<localSearch>
<termination>
<terminationCompositionStyle>OR</terminationCompositionStyle>
<maximumSecondsSpend>3600</maximumSecondsSpend>
<scoreAttained>0hard/0soft</scoreAttained>
</termination>
<unionMoveSelector>
<changeMoveSelector>
<valueSelector>
<!-- ** -->
<planningVariableName>role</planningVariableName>
</valueSelector>
</changeMoveSelector>
<changeMoveSelector>
<valueSelector>
<!-- entity var technician:who will execute the
task -->
<planningVariableName>technician</planningVariableName>
</valueSelector>
</changeMoveSelector>
<changeMoveSelector>
<valueSelector>
<!-- entity var period: when will the plane get
maintenance -->
<planningVariableName>period</planningVariableName>
</valueSelector>
</changeMoveSelector>
<swapMoveSelector>
</swapMoveSelector>
</unionMoveSelector>
<acceptor>
<!-- 3 => small amount of planning entities in unit test -->
<planningEntityTabuSize>3</planningEntityTabuSize>
</acceptor>
<forager>
<minimalAcceptedSelection>1000</minimalAcceptedSelection>
</forager>
</localSearch>
(**) entity var role: every maintenance job has one lead task (role ==
lead), all other tasks in that job must have role = member. The
technician assigned to the lead task will file the maintenance report.
One of the constraints (checked in other rule) is that no technician
should be lead-technician twice in a row on two sequential maintenance
jobs.
Thanks in advance.
Michiel
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
4408
days inactive
4408
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Michiel Vermandel -
Reinis