HGT-Scheduler: Deep Reinforcement Learning for the Job Shop Scheduling Problem via Heterogeneous Graph Transformers
Organizations: Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
Abstract
The Job Shop Scheduling Problem (JSSP) is commonly formulated as a disjunctive graph in which nodes represent operations and edges encode technological precedence constraints as well as machine-sharing conflicts. Most existing reinforcement learning approaches model this graph as homogeneous, merging job-precedence and machine-contention edges into a single relation type. Such a simplification overlooks the intrinsic heterogeneity of the problem structure and may lead to the loss of critical relational information. To address this limitation, we propose the Heterogeneous Graph Transformer (HGT)-Scheduler, a reinforcement learning framework that models the JSSP as a heterogeneous graph. The proposed architecture leverages a Heterogeneous Graph Transformer to capture type-specific relational patterns through edge-type-dependent attention mechanisms applied to precedence and contention relations. The scheduling policy is trained using Proximal Policy Optimization. The effectiveness of the proposed method is evaluated on the Fisher--Thompson benchmark instances. On the FT06 instance, the HGT-Scheduler achieves an optimality gap of 8.4%, statistically outperforming both an identical architecture that ignores edge types () and a standard Graph Isomorphism Network baseline. On the larger FT10 instance, the approach demonstrates favorable scalability. However, under a 50,000-step training limit, the performance of heterogeneous and homogeneous graph models is comparable, suggesting that edge-type awareness requires longer training horizons for larger problem instances. Ablation analyses further indicate that a three-layer attention architecture provides the best performance. Overall, the results confirm that explicitly modeling distinct edge semantics improves the learning of effective scheduling policies.
Figures & tables
| Method | FT06 ( ) | FT10 ( ) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Makespan | Gap (%) | Makespan | Gap (%) | |
| Random | 96.1 2.7 ∗∗ | 74.74 4.93 | 1832.8 17.4 | 97.07 1.87 |
| LPT | 129.0 0.0 ∗∗ | 134.55 0.00 | 2940.0 0.0 ∗∗ | 216.13 0.00 |
| SPT | 109.0 0.0 ∗∗ | 98.18 0.00 | 2648.0 0.0 ∗∗ | 184.73 0.00 |
| GIN (L2D-style) [ 11 ] | 66.6 8.8 | 21.09 15.99 | 1994.8 361.5 | 114.49 38.88 |
| Homo-HGT (ablation) | 66.0 2.6 ∗ | 20.00 4.81 | 1540.6 163.0 | 65.66 17.52 |
| Instance | Comparison | (%) | HGT | Baseline | -value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FT06 ( ) | LPT | +53.80 | 59.6 | 129.0 | 0.0000 ∗∗ |
| SPT | +45.32 | 59.6 | 109.0 | 0.0000 ∗∗ | |
| Random | +37.99 | 59.6 | 96.1 | 0.0000 ∗∗ | |
| Homo-HGT (ablation) | +9.70 | 59.6 | 66.0 | 0.0112 ∗ | |
| GIN (L2D-style) | +10.51 | 59.6 | 66.6 | 0.1658 | |
| FT10 ( ) | LPT | +45.78 | 1594.2 | 2940.0 | 0.0004 ∗∗ |
| Variant | Makespan ( ) | Gap (%) |
|---|---|---|
| HGT-Full (Ours) | 59.6 1.3 | 8.36% |
| HGT-2Layer | 60.3 4.2 | 9.70% |
| HGT-4Layer | 60.7 0.6 | 10.30% |
| HGT-1Layer | 62.0 1.0 | 12.73% |
| Homo-HGT (no edge types) | 66.0 2.6 | 20.00% |
| GIN (L2D-style) | 66.6 8.8 | 21.09% |
| Model | Parameters | Layers |
|---|---|---|
| HGT-Scheduler (ours) | 319,198 | 3 HGT + 2 MLP |
| Homo-HGT | 294,610 | 3 HGT + 2 MLP |
| GIN (L2D-style) | 271,174 | 3 GIN + 2 MLP |
Job Shop Scheduling
Job shop scheduling assigns precedence-constrained operations to machines to optimize makespan and other production objectives.
See all 23 papers