/
Compact Routes for the Min-Max K Windy Rural Postman Proble Compact Routes for the Min-Max K Windy Rural Postman Proble

Compact Routes for the Min-Max K Windy Rural Postman Proble - PowerPoint Presentation

yoshiko-marsland
yoshiko-marsland . @yoshiko-marsland
Follow
401 views
Uploaded On 2016-06-10

Compact Routes for the Min-Max K Windy Rural Postman Proble - PPT Presentation

by Oliver Lum 1 Carmine Cerrone 2 Bruce Golden 3 Edward Wasil 4 1 Department of Applied Mathematics and Scientific Computation University of Maryland College Park 2 Department of Computer Science University of Salerno ID: 356695

route depot routes mmkwrpp depot route mmkwrpp routes benavent average networks respect edge overlap lum algorithm outperforms problem max

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Compact Routes for the Min-Max K Windy R..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Compact Routes for the Min-Max K Windy Rural Postman Problem

by

Oliver Lum1, Carmine Cerrone2, Bruce Golden3, Edward Wasil4

1. Department of Applied Mathematics and Scientific Computation, University of Maryland, College Park

2. Department of Computer Science, University of Salerno

3. R.H Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park

4 Kogod School of Business, American UniversitySlide2

2

Problem Motivation

Depot

= Required

= Included in route

= Not traversed

The MMKWRPP

A natural extension of the Windy Rural Postman Problem

Minimize the max route cost

Homogenous fleet of K vehicles

Asymmetric traversal costs

Required and unrequired edges

Generalization of the directed, undirected, and mixed variants

Takes into account route balance and customer satisfaction

Route 1

Route 2

Route 3Slide3

3

One of the most appealing features of the Min-Max K Windy Rural Postman Problem is that it has many fundamental arc routing problems as special cases.

Generality

MMKWRPP

MMKURPP

MMKDRPP

MMKMRPP

URPP

DRPP

MRPP

CPP

DCPP

MCPP

WRPP

MCPP

Graph Transformation

Single-Vehicle

Full-Service

PSlide4

Literature Review

1

Introduction

Benavent, Enrique, et al. “Min-max k-vehicles windy rural postman problem.”

Networks

54:4 (2009): 216-226.

.

Metaheuristic

Benavent, Enrique, Angel Corberan, Jose M. Sanchis. “A metaheuristic for the min-max windy rural postman problem with k vehicles.”

Computational Management Science

7:3 (2010): 269-287.

Exact Solver

Benavent, Enrique, et al. “A branch-price-and-cut method for the min-max k-windy rural postman problem.”

Networks

63:1 (2014): 34-45.

The MMKWRPP

2

3

ILP Formulation

Polyhedron Characterized

Valid Inequalities (Aggregated, Disaggregated, R-odd cut, Honeycomb, etc.)

Route-First, Cluster-Second Heuristic

Multi-Start, ILS Metaheuristic based on single-vehicle work by same authors

Improves on the 2009 work

Adds pricing scheme

Faster, more scalable method, used to solve larger instances

4Slide5

Algorithm of Benavent et al.

Step 1: WRPP

Solve the single-vehicle variant

.

Step 2: Compact Route Representation

This produces a solution that can be represented as an ordered list of required edges (where any gaps are traversed via shortest paths)

Step 3: Split

Solve for the optimal split of the route into k distinct routes, by finding k-1 points in the route to return to the depot, preserving ordering

The MMKWRPP

Depot

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

5Slide6

Construct a directed, acyclic graph (DAG) with m+1 vertices, (0,1,…,m) where the cost of the arc (i-1,j) is the cost of the tour starting at the depot, going to the tail of edge i, continuing along the single-vehicle solution through edge j, and then returning to the depot

Algorithm of Benavent et al.

The MMKWRPP

0

2

1

8

6

jSlide7

Algorithm of Benavent et al.

The MMKWRPP

0

2

1

7

Depot

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8Slide8

Find a k-edge narrowest path (a path in which the weight of the heaviest edge in the traversal is minimized) from

v

0

to

v

m in the DAG, corresponding to a solution

A simple modification to Dijkstra’s single-source shortest path algorithm can produce such a path

Algorithm of Benavent et al.

The MMKWRPP

0

2

1

8

3

4

5

6

7

8Slide9

Algorithm of Benavent et al.

The MMKWRPP

Step 1: WRPP

Solve the single-vehicle variant.

.

Step 2: Compact Route Representation

This produces a solution that can be represented as an ordered list of required edges (where any gaps are traversed via shortest paths).

Step 3: Split

Solve for the optimal split of the route into k distinct routes, by finding k-1 points in the route to return to the depot, preserving ordering

9

Depot

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

x

xSlide10

Algorithm of Benavent et al.

The MMKWRPP

10

A

B

C

A={red,

yellow

}

B={

black

,

blue

,

teal

}

C={

black

,

yellow,

teal}Slide11

Partitioning Approach

The MMKWRPP

A

B

C

Depot

D

1

2

3

4

1

2

4

3

5

6

5

6

E

7

7

11

Transform the graph into a vertex-weighted graph by constructing its

edge dual

in the following way:

Create a vertex for each edge in the original graph

Connect two vertices I and j if, in the original graph, edge I and edge j shared an endpointSlide12

Partitioning Approach

The MMKWRPP

A

B

C

Depot

D

1

2

3

4

5

6

E

7

if link i must be deadheaded

otherwise

Set the vertex weights to account for known dead-heading and distance to the depot

 

12

1

2

4

3

5

6

7Slide13

Partition the transformed graph into k approximately equal parts

Partitioning Approach

The MMKWRPP

A

B

C

Depot

D

1

2

3

4

5

6

E

7

13

Green

Vertex

Green

Edge

1

2

4

3

5

6

7Slide14

For each of the partitions, solve the single-vehicle problem for which only the required edges in the partition are actually required

Partitioning Approach

The MMKWRPP

1

2

3

Depot

4

5

1

2

3

Depot

4

5

1

2

3

Depot

4

5

14

1

2

4

3

5

6

7

1

2

4

3

5

6

7

1

2

4

3

5

6

7Slide15

Visually

appealing

Customers on the same route are close to each otherOther than travel to and from the depot, little overlap

Routes further from depot are smallerCustomers as contiguous as possible

Partitioning Approach

The MMKWRPP

15Slide16

Comparing Partitions

The MMKWRPP

16Slide17

17

Aesthetic Measures

In practice, routes often exhibit properties like connectedness and compactness

Two metrics (ROI, ATD) proposed in Constantino et al. (

European Journal of Operational Research,

2015) are the first to feature interactions between routes

We introduce a third metric, Hull Overlap (HO), that incorporates the intuition behind ROI and ATD

Average Traversal Distance

Route Overlap Index

Hull Overlap

 Slide18

Attempts to measure the degree to which a set of routes overlaps. It penalizes each ‘required’ node for every route in which it’s visited, and normalizes based on an ‘ideal’, square instance (shown below on the right)

Formula

Motivation

Route Overlap Index

Node Overlap

Square Instance

Square Routes

Border Compensation

Route Overlap Index (ROI)

Compactness Metrics

18Slide19

Formula

Motivation

Average Traversal Distance

Pairwise Dist.

Task Pairs

Non-Comp. Routes

Compact Routes

Average Traversal Distance (ATD)

Compactness Metrics

Depot

6

4

2

1

3

7

5

Compact Routes

Depot

6

4

2

1

3

7

5

Non-compact Routes

19

Attempts to measure the compactness of a set of routes. It penalizes pairwise shortest path distances between links requiring service.Slide20

Formula

Motivation

First Process

Second Process

Third Process

Fourt Process

Final Process

Hull Overlap (HO)

Compactness Metrics

 

 

Set of routes in the solution

 

Area of the intersection of arguments

 

Convex hull of the points comprising the argument

 

Area of the argument

Depot

6

4

2

1

3

7

5

Non-compact Routes

20

Attempts to measure the degree to which a set of routes overlaps. It calculates the average portion of a route that overlaps with others.Slide21

10 real street networks taken from cities using the crowd-sourced Open Street Networks database

10 artificial rectangular networks, with random costs between 1 and 10

Experiments run with 3, 5, and 10 vehicles, with 20%, 50%, and 80% of links required

Test Specs:

64-bit PC

Intel i5 4690K 3.5 GHz CPU

8 GB RAM

Computational Results

The MMKWRPP

Metrics:

Distance of longest route

Average Traversal Distance

Route Overlap Index

Hull Overlap

21Slide22

Computational Results on Real Street Networks

The MMKWRPP

22

60 test

instances

(3 fleet size variations, and 2 depot locations for each of the 10 underlying networks)

|V| ranges from 506 to 2027

|E| ranges from 586 to 2588

With respect to max distance, BENAVENT outperforms LUM by 2.36% on average

With respect to ROI, LUM outperforms BENAVENT by 81.7% on average

With respect to ATD, LUM outperforms BENAVENT by 22.9% on average

With respect to HO, LUM outperforms BENAVENT by 26.8% on average

BENAVENT runs into memory constraints on the largest two networks. Results only consider the 48 instances both approaches were able to solveSlide23

Computational Results on Artificial Networks

The MMKWRPP

23

60 test

instances

(3 fleet size variations, and 2 depot locations for each of the 10 underlying networks)

|V| ranges from 225 to 576

|E| ranges from 420 to 1104

With respect to max distance, BENAVENT outperforms LUM by 4.38% on average

With respect to ROI, LUM outperforms BENAVENT by 72.7% on average

With respect to ATD, LUM outperforms BENAVENT by 29.6% on average

With respect to HO, LUM outperforms BENAVENT by 38.6% on averageSlide24

Refine the Partitions

Route Quality Survey

Optimize a Multi-Objective Function

Conclusions

The MMKWRPP

24

In practice, many routing problems require visually appealing solutions

We reviewed previous attempts in the literature to quantify what constitutes a ‘visually appealing’ set of routes and proposed our own metric that captures additional intuition

We presented an algorithm to solve a general arc routing variant and compared solutions with the existing state-of-the-art procedure

We showed the tradeoff between performance with respect to the objective function and the aesthetic quality of the routes

Computational results demonstrate consistent relative performance, robust to network layout, fleet size, and depot position Slide25

Refine the Partitions

Route Quality Survey

Optimize a Multi-Objective Function

Build the new metrics into the optimization procedures so that it’s possible to tune a solution technique to the relative importance of having aesthetically pleasing routes

Verify and motivate new metric design based on the results of what practitioners actually consider ‘good-looking’ routes

Improvement procedures and transformations to iteratively alter the partition

Future Work

The MMKWRPP

25