Generalizing Beyond Suboptimality: Offline Reinforcement Learning Learns Effective Scheduling through Random Solutions
About
Online reinforcement learning (RL) approaches have demonstrated strong performance on Job Shop Scheduling (JSP) and Flexible JSP (FJSP) problems by learning scheduling policies through direct interaction with simulated environments. However, these methods often require extensive training interactions, limiting their sample efficiency and practical applicability. Motivated by this challenge, we introduce Conservative Discrete Quantile Actor-Critic (CDQAC), an offline RL algorithm that learns effective scheduling policies directly from static, suboptimal datasets. CDQAC couples a quantile-based critic with delayed policy updates to estimate the return distribution of machine-operation pairs. Extensive experiments on JSP and FJSP benchmarks demonstrate that CDQAC consistently outperforms the data-generating heuristics, surpasses state-of-the-art offline and online RL baselines, and is highly sample efficient, requiring only 1 to 5% of the original dataset to learn high-quality policies. Our analysis suggests that, in scheduling, offline RL performance is governed mainly by state-action coverage rather than the quality of individual trajectories. Scheduling couples a dense reward aligned with the makespan objective with equal-length trajectories across heuristics, enabling effective learning from a broad range of behaviors. Consistent with this observation, datasets generated by a simple random heuristic with broader coverage let it outperform policies trained on datasets produced by stronger heuristics such as Genetic Algorithms.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Job Shop Scheduling | Taillard JSP instances | Average Gap (%)3.6 | 47 | |
| Flexible Job Shop Scheduling | FJSP PDR 10 x 5, 15 x 10, 20 x 10 (evaluation sets) | Average Gap (%)5.87 | 22 | |
| Flexible Job Shop Scheduling | FJSP GA 10 x 5, 15 x 10, 20 x 10 (evaluation sets) | Average Gap (%)5.86 | 22 | |
| Flexible Job Shop Scheduling | vdata (la01-la30) | Optimality Gap (%)0.65 | 21 | |
| Flexible Job Shop Scheduling | edata | Optimality Gap (%)7.77 | 20 | |
| Flexible Job Shop Scheduling | rdata | Gap (%)5.08 | 20 | |
| Job Shop Scheduling | Demirkol JSP instances | Average Gap (%)18.4 | 19 | |
| Flexible Job Shop Problem | FJSP 15 x 10 instances | Optimality Gap (%)5.85 | 11 | |
| Flexible Job Shop Scheduling | FJSP 30x10 instances Random (test) | Optimality Gap (%)3.11 | 11 | |
| Flexible Job Shop Scheduling | FJSP 40x10 instances Random (test) | Optimality Gap (%)2.21 | 11 |