4.5 Article

On the use of Monte Carlo simulation, cache and splitting techniques to improve the Clarke and Wright savings heuristics

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE OPERATIONAL RESEARCH SOCIETY
卷 62, 期 6, 页码 1085-1097

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1057/jors.2010.29

关键词

simulation; heuristics; probabilistic algorithms; vehicle routing; road transport

资金

  1. IN3-UOC Knowledge Community Program [HAROSA KC]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology [TRA2006-10639]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents the SR-GCWS-CS probabilistic algorithm that combines Monte Carlo simulation with splitting techniques and the Clarke and Wright savings heuristic to find competitive quasi-optimal solutions to the Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem (CVRP) in reasonable response times. The algorithm, which does not require complex fine-tuning processes, can be used as an alternative to other metaheuristics such as Simulated Annealing, Tabu Search, Genetic Algorithms, Ant Colony Optimization or GRASP, which might be more difficult to implement and which might require non-trivial fine-tuning processes when solving CVRP instances. As discussed in the paper, the probabilistic approach presented here aims to provide a relatively simple and yet flexible algorithm which benefits from: (a) the use of the geometric distribution to guide the random search process, and (b) efficient cache and splitting techniques that contribute to significantly reduce computational times. The algorithm is validated through a set of CVRP standard benchmarks and competitive results are obtained in all tested cases. Future work regarding the use of parallel programming to efficiently solve large-scale CVRP instances is discussed. Finally, it is important to notice that some of the principles of the approach presented here might serve as a base to develop similar algorithms for other routing and scheduling combinatorial problems. Journal of the Operational Research Society (2011) 62, 1085-1097. doi: 10.1057/jors.2010.29 Published online 19 May 2010

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据