Application of a Genetic Algorithm to improve an existing solution for the

General Assignment Problem.

Paul Juell Amal S. Perera Kendall E. Nygard

Department of Computer Science
North Dakota State University
Fargo, ND 58105, USA
{paul.juell, amal.perera, kendall.nygard}@ndsu.nodak.edu

Abstract

In this paper we present a mechanism to improve the solution quality of an existing heuristic

based general assignment problem solver by adjusting the heuristic. The heuristic is tweaked

using a set of parameters suggested by a genetic algorithm. The genetic algorithm is applied

in a way that reduces the amount of involvement required to understand the existing solution.

To illustrate the proposed approach we present the design implementation and simulation

results for an application. This application addresses the problem of target allocation for a

team of unmanned air vehicles that results in an efficient use of available resources. This

approach could be easily applied to an existing heuristic based general assignment problem

solver to improve the solution quality.

Keywords

General Assignment Problem, Capacitated Transshipment Problem, Genetic Algorithm,

Metaheuristics, Unmanned Air Vehicles.

1 Introduction and Background

The generalized assignment problem (GAP) is a well-known, NP-complete combinatorial

optimization problem. The GAP consists in assigning a set of tasks to a set of agents with

minimum cost. Each agent has a limited amount of a single resource and each task must be

assigned to one and only one agent, requiring a certain amount of the resource of the agent.

Exact and heuristic algorithms have been suggested to solve the GAP [CAT92],

[OSM95],[RAM98],[ROM00]. This paper is an attempt to apply a genetic algorithm to

improve the quality of the solution for an existing heuristic based greedy solution for a GAP.

Various attempts have been made for the application of a genetic algorithm to solve the GAP.

One such approach is to use the GA as the heuristic [CHU97]. In this approach the solution is

based on the genetic algorithm. It requires a good representation of the problem space. Special

considerations should be made to avoid invalid solutions to the problem. Another attempt is

made using a Constructive Genetic Algorithm (CGA), a modified genetic algorithm [LOR02].

In this approach a bi-objective search is used to reduce the computations. In this approach

also the CGA must be tailored to be applied to the GAP.

In this paper we are proposing a mechanism to improve an existing GAP solver by adjusting

the existing heuristic. The heuristic is tweaked using a set of parameters suggested by the

genetic algorithm. This approach reduces the amount of involvement required to understand

the existing solution for a GAP. This approach could be easily applied to any existing

heuristic based GAP solver to improve the solution quality. Many real life applications can be

formulated as a GAP. Examples include resource scheduling, the allocation of memory space

in a computer, the design of a communication network with capacity constraints at each

network node, assigning software development tasks to programmers, assigning jobs to

computers in a network, vehicle routing problems, and others. In this paper we use an existing

solver for a capacitated transshipment problem (CTP). Capacitated transshipment problem is a

special case of a GAP. This work demonstrates the application of a GA to improve the

solution quality provided by the existing solver. The CTP is different from the normal

shipment problem. In CTP we can have transshipment points through which the supplier

could reach a demand point. The existing CTP solver used is proposed in [NYG01] for a Low

Cost Autonomous Attack System (LOCAAS).

LOCAAS weapons systems are small aircrafts, each with a small turbojet engine with

sufficient fuel to fly for about 30 minutes. These will be deployed in teams and the objective

is to be able to assign a set of targets. This problem has been approached as a linear

programming problem [NYG01]. In this approach each LOCAAS gets an assignment for one

target. In the event of having multiple targets, it is suggested to use an iterative version of the

above solver. In the iterative approach each iteration will allow the solver to freeze one target

for a specific Unmanned Air Vehicle (UAV) and then go ahead with the rest of the targets

until all the targets are assigned. This will lead to a sequence of tasks for each UAV thus

providing it with a plan of attack. In this paper we try to improve the global solution quality of

the iterative approach by introducing a genetic algorithm. The GA is used to influence the

decision on fixing targets to the respective UAV.

A genetic algorithm is an “intelligent” probabilistic search algorithm. It simulates evolution

by taking a population of solutions and applying genetic operators in each reproduction. Each

solution is evaluated and better solutions are given more opportunities to reproduce.
Combining existing solutions through the process of reproduction generates new solutions.

[GOL89],[CHU97]

We approach the assignment of targets to the UAVs as a generalized assignment problem. We

propose the use of a GA to suggest better variations to the existing greedy solver as a novel

approach. In this approach changes done to the existing solver will not affect the GA based

application. It can run independently and suggest variations to the solver. Iterative

Capacitated Transshipment (ICTP) Solver is an existing greedy solver for the GAP. In each

iteration the solver will freeze one agent task point, until the solution runs out of supplies or

all the tasks are assigned. The greedy heuristic used in this approach will fix the agent task

point for the first agent with the ability to finish the task.

2 Proposed Design

In this section we give a high level description of the proposed solution. The solution consists

of three components, namely the capacitated transshipment problem solver (CTP), Iterative

CTP, and the GA based ICTP.

2.1 Solution with the Capacitated Transshipment Problem Solver.

The existing CTP solver will assign the best set of targets for the available set of UAVs. Each

UAV will be assigned only one target. Given n UAVs and m targets the CTP will assign n

targets to n available UAVs.

2.2 Extension using the Iterative CTP to plan a path for the UAVs.

The ICTP solver will assign a set of targets for each UAV. In this approach the UAV with the

earliest completion time will be permanently assigned that target and the CTP solver will be

executed again with the remaining targets. Primary objective is to be able to assign multiple
targets to each UAV. Targets will be assigned to each UAV until it runs out of resources or

there are no more targets to be assigned.

2.3 Improving the ICTP solution using a GA

ICTP approach is a greedy approach to arrive at a quick solution. It is clear that the naïve

approach of fixing the target for the UAV with the earliest completion time will not arrive at a

near global optimum for all cases. This observation leads us to consider other options to fix

the targets. In this paper we have tried three different target fixing schemes by assigning

weights to the UAVs and targets. The weighting scheme allows the solution to fix the targets

with some influence from the respective weights. The GA supplies the weight for each item.

The greedy algorithm then uses this weight as part of the metric that determines the order of

selection. This allows the GA to reorder the greedy order suggested by the naïve approach.

Quality of each solution is measured by observing the target assignment for total coverage

and resource utilization. The GA will use feedback from the quality of solution to guide the

search for the best set of weights.

3.0 Implementation

In this section we give a detailed description of the implementation. An existing

implementation of the ICTP was used with a publicly available GA implementation. Most of

the implementation effort was spent on writing glue code and application specific routines.

3.1 Genetic Algorithm

GENESIS is a system for function optimization based on genetic search techniques [GRE87].

This is implemented in C and the code is publicly available. The existing ICTP is

implemented in C++. The interface requirement for the GA is to be able to supply the set of
weights and get the evaluation from the ICTP. Figure 1 shows an outline of the proposed

setup for the solution. The solver will take the available UAVs and the identified targets as an

input. It will output a list of targets assigned for each UAV. The existing implementation of

ICTP was modified to allow multiple target fixing schemes to be used. Several approaches

were tried and we finally decided on having the GA call the ICTP through the main program

interface. This approach allowed to setup this application with the least amount of

modifications to the existing solution.

Input:
Available UAVs
Identified Targets
GA Suggested Wts ICTP
Output:
UAVs
assigned
Solution Quality multiple
Targets

Figure 1

3.2 Weight Schemes for the ICTP.

The weighting scheme allows us to influence the target assignment for each iteration of the

CTP. This is achieved by suggesting an importance to each assignment. Each assignment

suggested by the CTP is ranked with a function that takes time to complete, and suggested

weight into account. Top ranked assignment is fixed for that iteration. Different weight values

selected by the GA will cause items to be assigned in order based on the weight value. Three

different schemes were evaluated in assigning weights. They are UAVs only, Targets only

and weights for both UAVs and Targets together.

 3.3 GA Evaluation Function

The evaluation function is an important aspect of any GA based search optimization

[GOL89]. In this application the final objective is to assign the maximum possible number of

targets for the available UAVs. Desired qualities of the expected solution are, maximum

coverage and the ability to maximize on the average number missions per UAV. Several

variations were tried and the following function was used as the evaluation function.

∑ t.assigned
t∈targets 1
QualityOfSolution = ×
∑ u.used (1 + ∑
u∈UAVs t∈targets
¬t.assigned

Where: t.assigned: indicates a target that is assigned in this solution; t.used: indicates a UAV
used for this solution; t.assigned and t.used are boolean functions; targets : all targets in test
bed, UAVs: all UAVs available for the task.

4 Experiments and Results

In this section we present experimental results to show the improvement in quality of solution

with the proposed approach. Initially we present 2 selected graphical examples of test cases

where the proposed solution performs better than the existing solution. Finally we present the

results of simulations on randomly generated test cases.

4.1 Examples of solutions.

Figure 2 shows two example scenarios of how the GA based solution performs better than the

existing ICTP solution. The simulations were done for 2 UAVs with 6 targets and minimal

amount of combined range (radius of maximum possible flight distance) for the UAVs to

cover all targets. In Figure 2 left, two targets are not assigned where the GA based solution is

able to assign all targets. In figure 2 right the GA based solution is able to capture all the
targets where the ICTP based solution will miss 2 targets. It can be clearly observed that the

GA is able to avoid getting stuck on local optimums.

Range

GAICTP

ICTP

Target

UAV

Figure 2

4.2 Simulation Results for Randomly Generated Test Cases.

Simulations were conducted with randomly generated sets of test cases. Each target was

assumed to be equally valuable. Targets were spread around an area that can be covered by

the combined range available on all the UAVs. Results of the experiments are given on Table

A in the Appendix. The solution is compared against the existing ICTP. Summarized results

are given in Table 1. Measure of comparison used is the ratio of targets covered by the

solution. It is clear from the values that the GA based solution is better than ICTP. There is

also a slight improvement shown with an increase in the number of weights in the weight

scheme. The three weight schemes discussed in section 3.2 are compared. Weight usage is

given as a ratio against the scheme that uses the maximum number of weights.
 ICTP GA
Weight Scheme - UAVs Targets UAVs & Targets
Coverage 0.896 0.944 0.950 0.958
Weight usage - 0.2 0.8 1.0

Table 1

Table A (in Appendix) also shows number of trials and the generation number to achieve 10

percent convergence for each solution. This can be used as an indication of the amount of

computation required for each solution. Each trial requires the execution of the ICTP. Most of

the computational overhead is spent on the ICTP. Computational cost can be estimated by

observing the number of trials required.

5 Conclusions and Future Work.

We have presented a clear-cut application of a GA to improve an existing solver for a CTP.

We have clearly shown that the GA based solution is better than the existing ICTP. Thus we

have demonstrated the capacity of a GA to improve an existing solution for a General

Assignment Problem. This approach reduces the amount of involvement required to

understand the existing solution for a GAP. This approach could be easily applied to any

existing heuristic based GAP solver to improve the solution quality. As described in this paper

the GA can be applied independent to the existing solver.

Further work can be done to evaluate a reliable stopping condition for the GA for this

application. Computational cost should also be evaluated for feasibility purposes. Attempts

should be made on other application areas to substantiate the broader claim of using a GA to

improve an existing heuristic based GAP solver.

 Appendix (Simulation Results)
ICTP GA
Wt Sch. - - UAVs Targets UAVs & Targets
Convergence Convergence Convergence
Exp # AsnTgs QOS AsnTgs QOS Gen # Trial # AsnTgs QOS Gen # Trial # AsnTgs QOS Gen # Trial #
1 22 43.5 23 66.7 81 1267 23 66.7 20 363 24 100.0 29 545
2 22 45.5 24 100.0 29 462 24 100.0 20 378 24 100.0 19 373
3 24 100.0 24 100.0 29 462 25 250.0 14 275 25 200.0 19 370
4 23 76.9 24 111.1 25 372 24 111.1 20 374 24 111.1 14 278
5 22 47.6 25 200.0 98 1536 25 200.0 24 455 25 200.0 14 284
6 25 200.0 25 250.0 81 1267 25 250.0 20 374 25 250.0 48 901
7 23 66.7 24 111.1 39 633 24 111.1 20 367 25 250.0 29 550
8 25 250.0 25 250.0 58 902 25 250.0 25 467 25 250.0 24 461
9 24 111.1 25 250.0 58 902 24 111.1 35 643 24 111.1 28 541
10 23 71.4 24 111.1 70 1088 25 250.0 39 728 24 111.1 43 810
11 22 45.5 25 250.0 58 902 24 111.1 20 374 25 200.0 20 379
12 22 38.5 22 40.0 70 1087 23 62.5 25 463 23 58.8 24 464
13 19 18.9 21 27.8 73 118 22 38.5 15 284 22 40.0 72 1276
14 22 45.5 24 111.1 40 642 25 250.0 15 281 25 250.0 14 276
15 20 23.8 22 41.7 48 730 22 41.7 15 280 23 55.6 14 273
16 22 45.5 23 58.8 53 825 23 58.8 25 466 23 62.5 24 460
17 24 100.0 24 100.0 46 734 24 100.0 19 366 24 100.0 14 279
18 21 31.3 22 41.7 61 907 22 43.5 18 360 22 41.7 14 275
19 23 66.7 24 90.9 17 278 24 111.1 9 182 24 111.1 14 271
20 20 25.6 22 43.5 59 904 22 41.7 20 368 23 58.8 51 906
Avg 22.4 47.6 23.6 76.9 54.65 800.9 23.75 83.3 20.9 392.4 23.95 90.9 26.4 498.6
Succ 0.896 0.944 0.950 0.958
TABLE A
Key AsnTgs : Number of targets assigned by the solution (total number of targets = 25) QOS: Quality of solution (using Evaluation Function)
Convergence Gen# | Trial# : number of generation / trial when 10 % convergence was evident on solution Wt Sch: Weighting Scheme
References

[NYG01] Dynamic Network Flow Optimization Models for LOCAAS Resource

Allocation, Kendall E. Nygard, Program on Unmanned Combat Air
Vehicles, Office of Naval Research, 2001.

[RAM98] Adaptive Approach Heuristics For The Generalized Assignment

Problem, Helena Ramalhinha, Laurena Daniel Serra, 1998.

[CHU97] A genetic algorithm for the generalized assignment problem, P.C. Chu
and J.E. Beasley, Camp. Opns. Res 24(1), 17-23, 1997.

[LOR02] A Constructive Genetic Algorithm For The Generalized Assignment

Problem, Luiz A.N. Lorena, Marcelo G. Narciso, J.E. Beasley, working
paper, 2002.

[ROM00] A Class of Generalized Greedy Algorithms for the Generalized

Assignment Problem, H.E. Romeijn, D. Romero Morales, Discrete
Applied Mathematics 103, 209-235, 2000.

[CAT92] A Survey of algorithms for the generalized assignment problem, D.

Cattrysse, L.N. Van Wassenhove, Eur. J. Oper. Res. , 1992

[OSM95] Heuristics for the generalized assignment problem, simulated annealing

and tabu search approaches, I. H. Osman, OR Spektrum, 1995.

[GRE87] A User’s Guide to GENESIS, John J. Grefenstette, Navy Center for

Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence, Naval Research Laboratory,
Washington, D.C., August 1987.

[GOL89] Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization, and Machine Learning, D.E.

Goldberg, Addison Wesley, 1989.