Abstract: This study presents an optimum approach to calculate the optimal robot arm movement for processing a considerable commitment of tasks using Tabu Search (TS) algorithm. In the scheduling problem, the objective is to minimize the total processing time related to tasks distances from each other. In the first step, the TS method is reviewed and we employ the proposed method in order to assign efficiently the optimal robot arm movement. In our proposed algorithm, the crossover rate is large at first and gradually it is decreased based on convergence improvement in next generations. We define an objective function including the operation times. Then, by minimizing this function using discrete TS algorithm, the optimal robot arm movement trajectory is assigned efficiently and quickly. If the resulted best cost converges to global minima, the crossover rate will be decreased in next generation. This method is studied in terms of operation time, convergence speed and quality of the results. Superior features of this algorithm are fast tuning, rapid convergence, less computational burden and capability to avoid from local minima. High promising results demonstrate that our proposed method is very efficient and can obtain higher quality solutions with better computational capability

A Rabii

B Mohamady

S Mobaieen

CiteSeerX

Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 4(4): 383-386, 2012
ISSN: 2040-7467
© Maxwell Scientific Organization, 2012
Submitted: October 31, 2011 Accepted: November 25, 2011 Published: February 15, 2012 
Corresponding Author: A. Rabii, Department of Engineering Abhar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Abhar, Iran, Tel.:
+982166285831
383
Optimal Robot Arm Movement using Tabu Search Algorithm
S. Mobaieen, A. Rabii and B. Mohamady
Department of Engineering, Abhar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Abhar, Iran
Abstract: This study presents an optimum approach to calculate the optimal robot arm movement for
processing a considerable commitment of tasks using Tabu Search (TS) algorithm. In the scheduling problem,
the objective is to minimize the total processing time related to tasks distances from each other. In the first step,
the TS method is reviewed and we employ the proposed method in order to assign efficiently the optimal robot
arm movement. In our proposed algorithm, the crossover rate is large at first and gradually it is decreased based
on convergence improvement in next generations. We define an objective function including the operation
times. Then, by minimizing this function using discrete TS algorithm, the optimal robot arm movement
trajectory is assigned efficiently and quickly. If the resulted best cost converges to global minima, the crossover
rate will be decreased in next generation. This method is studied in terms of operation time, convergence speed
and quality of the results. Superior features of this algorithm are fast tuning, rapid convergence, less
computational burden and capability to avoid from local minima. High promising results demonstrate that our
proposed method is very efficient and can obtain higher quality solutions with better computational capability.
Key words:Arm movement, genetic algorithm, particle swarm optimization, reduced crossover, tabu search,
task-sequencing
INTRODUCTION
The problems of applying mathematical approaches
on engineering and optimization difficulties have led to
the development of different heuristic solutions.
Traditional procedures reach local optimum solutions and
fail in solving hard problems with non-linear cost
functions and various variables (Haupt and Haupt, 2004).
Traditional methods such as mathematical programming
and branch and bound methods are very slow and
inefficient to solve this problem (Bryan and Alidaee,
2002). To overcome these complications, the favorite aim
is to recommend a competent algorithm that may appear
near-optimal solutions. Evolutionary algorithms are
stochastic techniques that reproduce the natural
evolutions. These processes have been established to
reach near-optimal results of optimization problems which
previous mathematical devices may fail on solving them.
The robot task-scheduling problem can be observed
as a routing problem with finite number of cities that must
be visited by a salesman person. The number of feasible
solutions is (n!) (Bean, 1994). This problem is an NP-hard
problem settled in Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP).
The salesman starts the route from a point and visits all of
the cities in a certain time interval. The cities in the TSP
correspond to the tasks and operation times are related to
distances of the cities (Bryan and Alidaee, 2002; Bean,
1994). All tasks are assumed to be available for
processing at time zero and the goal is to minimize the
whole operation time.
Genetic Algorithms (GAs) are the first, main and
most popular technique of evolutionary techniques that
was developed based on the Darwinian Principle,
“survival of the fittest”, and the biological process of
evolution through reproduction (Al-Tabtabai and Alex,
1999). Based on the capability of GA method to attain
near-optimal solutions, it has been used in many science
applications. The first algorithm was developed by
Holland (1975), and popularized by Goldberg (1989) who
was able to use it for applied applications such as the
control of gas-pipeline transmission (Al-Tabtabai and
Alex, 1999; Goldberg, 1989). GA as a powerful adaptive
search technique and stochastic search method for solving
optimization problems is the most extensively known
evolutionary algorithm. GA has been used in several
optimization problems comprising job-shop and machine
scheduling problems. Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO)
was formulated by Kennedy and Eberhart (1995). In PSO
algorithm, each solution to the problem is considered as
a bird flying in the search space and is called a particle
(Kennedy and Eberhart, 1995).
In this study, we present an optimum approach to
calculate the optimal robot arm movement for processing
a considerable commitment of tasks using TS. In the
proposed method, the crossover rate is large at first and
gradually it is decreased based on convergence
improvement in next generations. An objective function
including the operation times is defined and the efficiency
of three intelligent algorithms, i.e., GA, PSO and TS is
compared. In an  attempt  to  improve the superiority of 
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(4): 383-386, 2012
384
solutions and avoid trapping in local optima, we introduce
TS method to the cost improvement for robot task-
scheduling problem. 
METHODOLOGY
Problem description: A set of n tasks is presented to an
intelligent robot for processing in particular time. The
objective is to calculate the optimal robot arm movement
to minimize the total operation time. The cost function to
be minimized is:
(1)T P d dk k k n
k
n
k
n
= + ++
=
−
=
∑∑ ( )1 0
0
1
1
where T is the total operation time of robot on n tasks.
dk(k+1)=dij  if the jobs i and j are considered in the (k)th and
(k+1)th positions of the sequence. Pi is the operation time
on task i and dij is considered as follows:
(2)( )d r vij ij ij=max ,
where rij is the preparation time of robot for operation on
task j after task i, and vij is the robot arm movement time
from position of  task i to the position of task j. In Eq. (1),
doj is the movement time from the start position of the
robot arm to the first task’s position and djo is the
movement time from the position of the last task to the
start position. Supposing that all processing times are
fixed, the cost function may be reduced to:
(3)T d dk k n
k
n
= ++
=
−
∑ ( )1 0
0
1
An overview of tabu search algorithm:
GA: The GA method is based on the mechanics of natural
genetics and natural selection, and uses the following
basic operators to manage all genetically activities of
population individuals (Al-Tabtabai and Alex, 1999;
Goldberg, 1989): selection or reproduction, which allows
the best solutions to be transferred to the next generation,
crossover, a random exchange of parents’ genes, and
mutation, a random change in the characteristics of a
gene. Initial GA methods were presented in forms of
Binary-coded sequences. Afterwards, new versions of GA
were innovated, which used integer amounts to state
sequences. In GA method, Firstly the preliminary random
and corresponding task sequences are formed and
algorithm calculates all cost values. The created solutions
are selected for reproduction and crossover rate is
assigned based on best cost rate and its closeness to
optimal value. Then, crossover and mutation operations
are performed. At the end of each generation, the stop
criterion is checked. If the number of generations reaches
the maximum, records the latest global best solution and
ends the algorithm.
PSO: Considering the social behavior of swarm of fish,
bees and other animals, the concept of the PSO is
developed. The PSO is a robust stochastic evolutionary
computation method based on the movement of swarms
looking for the most fertile feeding location (Kennedy and
Eberhart, 1995; Liu et al., 2011). In general, PSO
implementation is easier than GA. Indeed, PSO only has
one operator; velocity calculation, so the computation
time is decreased significantly. The reason is PSO does
not perform the selection and crossover operations in
evolutionary process. 
Another difference between GA and PSO is the
ability to control convergence. Crossover and mutation
rates can affect the convergence of GA, but nothing can
compare to the level of control achieved through
manipulating of the inertial weight. The more decrease of
inertial weight the more increase the swarm's
convergence. This type of control allows determining the
rate of convergence, and the level of “stagnation”
eventually achieved. Stagnation occurs in GA when all of
the individuals have the same genetic code. In that case
the gene pool is uniform, crossover has little or no effect
on population and each successive generation is
essentially same as the first. However, in the PSO, this
effect can be controlled or prevented. 
All solutions in PSO can be represented as particles
in a swarm. Each particle has a position and velocity
vector and each position coordinate represents a
parameter value. Similar to the most optimization
techniques, PSO requires a fitness evaluation function
relevant to the particle’s position.
TS: TS algorithm first was introduced by (Glover, 1990;
Goldberg, 1989; Padmavathi and Shalinie, 2010). This
approach is a combination of optimization and search
methods based on converging to the best available
neighborhood solution point. In other words, the principle
idea is to move to the best point of search space in terms
of cost function, even though it is worse than the current
solution  point  (Padmavathi  and  Shalinie,  2010; Porto
et al., 2000). An aspiration criterion implies that if some
tabu movements lead to promising solutions, these tabu
status are accepted. The TS method is a local search
approach with a flexible memory structure and it can be
applied directly to various problems, without requiring the
plant models. 
TS procedure is utilized with features that lead to
escape from local minima. Important features consist of
Short-Term Memory, Long-Term (Frequency-Based)
Memory and Aspiration Criteria. In the Short-term
Memory (Tabu List) we maintain a list of solution points
that have been visited recently and must be avoided. We
update the tabu list in each iteration based on solution
points.
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(4): 383-386, 2012
385
Find a starting point 
Create a cadidate 
   list of moves   
Decode the whole of non-Tabu
                      points 
Choose the best 
non-Tabu move 
Stopping 
criterion?
Exit algorithm   Update 
Tabu list 
Fig. 1: Flow chart of TS algorithm
In the Long-Term Memory we register the number of
occasions that the solution point has been visited. The
updating period of this memory is very longer than short-
term memory. We use this memory while all of the non-
tabu points in the neighborhood lead to increase the cost
function and aspiration criterion is not satisfied. 
Aspiration Criteria implies that if some tabu moves lead
to promising solutions, these moves are accepted.
In this section we summarize the discrete TS
algorithm in five steps. Assume that X  is a total search
space and x is a solution point sample and f(x)  is cost
function. First, we choose xpX to start the process, then a
candidate list of non-Tabu moves in neighborhood is
created. All solution points are decoded and then we find
xwinner pN(x)  such that  f(xwinner) <f(xi),i…Winner . In the
last  stage, we  check  the  stopping criterion. If satisfied,
exit the algorithm. If not, x = xwinner , the Tabu List is
updated and we return to the first stage of algorithm.
There are several criterions for exiting the algorithm:
C Determining a threshold T0: If the value of cost
function is less than T0, stop algorithm
C Determine specific number of iterations
C If the value of the cost is remained invariable or
negligible change for several iterations, exit the
algorithm
Flow chart of the algorithm is shown in Fig. 1. In this
paper, we use discrete Tabu Search algorithm for task
scheduling applications as well. 
SIMULATION RESULTS
Considering the random sequences, the order of tasks
are assigned so that if we start with the smallest number
and place its position number at first position of the task
sequence, the second task will be relative to the next
smallest number and so on until all tasks’ positions are
assigned. Using these random sequences, it is easy to
perform crossover on them. Also, immigration operation
can be added to the algorithm by producing a new random
sequence instead of the worst sequence (instead of the
parent with worst cost).
At first step, parents’ elements are generated between
0 and 1 randomly and task sequences are assigned
according to these random generated numbers (Table 1).
Then, cost function for each sequence is calculated and
the program sorts all random and task sequences based on
their corresponding cost values (Table 2). Random and
corresponding task sequences in the second generation are
illustrated in Table 3.
The best solution is allowed to forward to the next
generation and the crossover is performed on two
sequences which have low costs (sequences 1 and 2 or 2
and 3)  proportional  to  cost  convergence  to  the global
Table 1: Random generated sequences and their related task sequences.
Random sequence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 0.7393 0.0150 0.4093 0.1960 0.9342 0.0409 0.3685 0.9515
2 0.3162 0.5816 0.5147 0.2861 0.6802 0.6948 0.1546 0.6072
3 0.8734 0.1411 0.5559 0.2965 0.2788 0.4749 0.0120 0.2269
4 0.3770 0.7201 0.5753 0.7459 0.5800 0.9050 0.3949 0.4435
5 0.4544 0.0337 0.3276 0.5928 0.5533 0.0460 0.1150 0.0391
Task sequence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cost
1 6 1 5 3 7 2 4 8 184.9814
2 3 5 4 2 7 8 1 6 185.6138
3 8 2 7 5 4 6 1 3 150.5182
4 1 6 4 7 5 8 2 3 144.0916
5 6 1 5 8 7 3 4 2 187.0537
Table 2: Sorted task sequences based on their cost values.
Task sequence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cost
1 1 6 4 7 5 8 2 3 144.0916
2 8 2 7 5 4 6 1 3 150.5182
3 6 1 5 3 7 2 4 8 184.9814
4 3 5 4 2 7 8 1 6 185.6138
5 6 1 5 8 7 3 4 2 187.0537
Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol., 4(4): 383-386, 2012
386
Table 3: Random and corresponding task sequences in the second generation (crossover rate is 5/8).
Random sequence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 0.3770 0.7201 0.5753 0.7459 0.5800 0.9050 0.3949 0.4435
2 0.8734 0.7201 0.5753 0.2965 0.5800 0.9050 0.012 0.4435
3 0.3770 0.015 0.5753 0.7459 0.9342 0.0409 0.3949 0.4435
4 0.4322 0.0541 0.7885 0.0167 0.9506 0.9320 0.0239 0.5466
5 0.9764 0.9143 0.6017 0.1655 0.4636 0.8969 0.2020 0.2604
Task sequence 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cost
1 1 6 4 7 5 8 2 3 144.0916
2 7 6 4 2 5 8 1 3 173.4596
3 3 1 6 7 8 2 4 5 154.3209
4 4 3 6 1 8 7 2 5 131.8701
5 8 7 5 1 4 6 2 3 139.9540
Table 4: Best cost comparison of algorithms
Best cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jobs NJS GA PSO TS
8 134.021 92.7586 92.7586 89.4853
12 194.361 171.9197 163.3117 160.1921
20 404.578 356.904 331.0989 330.3287
50 1204.2 1174.7 1106.11 1101.6548
Table 5: Run time comparison
Run time (s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jobs NJS GA PSO TS
8 0.033064 1.901204 0.4844 2.4839
12 0.021937 2.6592 0.46912 2.9795
20 0.1342 4.3173 0.55975 5.4387
50 0.0945 22.882 2.2434 24.1658
minima. For example, at first generations, because of
much difference between the best cost and the near-
optimum value, the crossover rate is large and therefore
majority of sequences elements are exchanged. In next
generations, by approaching the cost value to minima,
crossover is performed on few numbers of elements. In
the following, we compare Neighborhood Job Search
(NJS) (Bryan and Alidaee, 2002), GA, PSO and TS
methods.
Table 4 and 5 show the results in forms of the best
cost and run time for different numbers of jobs.
It is clear from the simulation results in Table 4 and
5 that although the run time for task sequencing using the
TS algorithm is more than the other methods, however it
has reasonable improvement in terms of the cost
comparison. This competence is illustrated better by
increasing the number of jobs and confronting with more
complicated problems.
CONCLUSION
In this study, we present the Tabu Search algorithm
for the task sequencing problem. A new step has been
introduced to the framework, crossover rate reducing
based on the cost value improvement. Compared with
other methods, this proposed algorithm demonstrates the
capability of producing better solutions though taking
longer   time.  The  topic   of   our   future  researches  is
combining our mentioned algorithm with the PSO method
to reduce the computation time and improve the algorithm
efficiency.
REFERENCES
Al-Tabtabai, H. and P. Alex, 1999. Using genetic
algorithms to solve optimization problems in
construction. Eng. Constra. Archit. Manage., 6(2):
121-132.
Bean, J.C., 1994. Genetic algorithms and random keys for
sequencing and optimization. ORSA J. Comp., 6(2):
154-160.
Bryan, R. and B. Alidaee, 2002. Single machine
scheduling to minimize total weighted late work: A
comparison of scheduling rules and search
algorithms. Comp. Indus. Engineering, 43: 509-528.
Goldberg, D.E., 1989. Genetic Algorithms in Search,
Optimization and Machine Learning. Reading,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co, MA.
Glover, F., 1990. Tabu Search-Part II. ORSA J. Comp.,
2(1): 4-32.
Haupt, R.L. and S.E. Haupt, 2004. Practical Genetic
Algorithms. State College, Pennsylvania, a John
Wiley & Song, Inc.,
Holland, J., 1975. Adaptation In Natural and Artificial
Systems. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Kennedy, J. and R.C. Eberhart, 1995. Particle swarm
optimization. Proceedings of IEEE International
Conference on Neural Networks, Piscataway, NJ,
IEEE Sevice Center, pp: 1942-1948.
Liu, L.L., G.P. Zhao and S.S. Ou'Yang, 2011. Integrating
theory of constraints and particle swarm optimization
in order planning and scheduling for machine tool
production. Inter. J. Adv. Manufactur. Technol.,
57(4): 285-296. 
Padmavathi, S. and S.M. Shalinie, 2010. Tabu search
based memetic algorithm for task scheduling. J.
Comp. Inf. Syst., 6(4): 1017-1025.
Porto, S.C.S., J.P. Kitajima and C.C. Ribeiro, 2000.
Performance evaluation of a parallel tabu search task
scheduling algorithm. Parallel Comp., 26(1): 73-90.


Optimal Robot Arm Movement using Tabu Search Algorithm

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=1760DD695092764C7E892A5DF9E70128?doi=10.1.1.1075.7097&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Optimal Robot Arm Movement using Tabu Search Algorithm

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CiteSeerX