Soft Computing

, Volume 21, Issue 18, pp 5457–5473 | Cite as

Simulated annealing based GRASP for Pareto-optimal dissimilar paths problem

Methodologies and Application
  • 104 Downloads

Abstract

This paper investigates a meta-heuristic (MH) for the Pareto-optimal dissimilar path problem (DPP) (PDPP) whose solution is a set composed of at least two different paths. The objective vector of a PDPP includes some conflicting objectives: on the one hand, the average path measures such as the length and risk of paths in a solution must be kept low and, on the other hand, the dissimilarity among these paths should be kept high. The dissimilarity of the DPP is a measure of a paths set with cardinality no less than two. However, just one path can be extracted from a chromosome in the existing MHs for various path problems. This results in a great difficulty to evaluate the chromosome in the existing MHs when we apply them to solve DPP and, consequently, there exists no MH for solving the DPP so far. In this paper, a new decoding approach of a chromosome is first explored and, with this approach, a set of paths can be extracted from a chromosome. By combining the simulated annealing (SA), in which the new decoding approach is adopted, with the well-known greedy randomized adaptive search procedure (GRASP), a SA-based GRASP for the PDPP is proposed. The proposed algorithm is compared against a most recent heuristic, whose performance is better than all of the early approaches, for the PDPP and the experimental results show that the proposed algorithm is able to quickly create superior approximation of the efficient set of the PDPP than the existing solution approaches for the PDPP.

Keywords

Network Evolutionary algorithm (EA) Shortest path problem (SPP) Dissimilar path problem (DPP) Probability and risk 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71361018, 61563029).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ahn CW, Ramakrishna R (2002) A genetic algorithm for shortest path routing problem and the sizing of populations. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 6:566–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akgun V, Erkut E, Batta R (2000) On finding dissimilar paths. Eur J Oper Res 121:232–246CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker JE (1985) Adaptive selection methods for genetic algorithm. In: Proceedings of 1st international conference on genetic algorithms. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 101–111Google Scholar
  4. Batta R, Chiu SS (1988) Optimal obnoxious paths on a network: transportation of hazardous materials. Oper Res 36:84–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bianchi L, Dorigo M, Gambardella LM, Gutjahr WJ (2009) A survey on metaheuristics for stochastic combinatorial optimization. Nat Comput Int J 8(2):239–287MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Carotenuto P, Giordani S, Ricciardelli S (2007) Finding minimum and equitable risk routes for hazmat shipments. Comput Oper Res 34:1304–1327CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Climaco JNC, Martins EQV (1982) A bicriterion shortest path algorithm. Eur J Oper Res 11:399–404MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Coello Coello CA, Veldhuizen DAV, Lamont GB (2002) Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objectives problems. Kluwer Academic, BostonCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Deb K (2001) Multiobjective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Dell’Olmo P, Gentili M, Scozzari A (2005) Heuristics for dissimilar Pareto-optimal paths. Eur J Oper Res 162:70–82CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Duarte A, Marti R (2007) Tabu search and GRASP for the maximum diversity problem. Eu J Oper Res 178:71–84MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Eglese RW (1990) Simulated annealing: a tool for operational research. Eur J Oper Res 46:271–281MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Erkut E (1990) The discrete \(p\)-dispersion problem. Eur J Oper Res 46:48–60MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Erkut E, Verter V (1998) Modeling of transport risk for hazardous materials. Oper Res 46:625–642CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Feo TA, Resende MGC (1989) A probabilistic heuristic for a computationally difficult set covering problem. Oper Res Lett 8:67–71MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Feo TA, Resende MGC (1995) Greedy randomized adaptive search procedures. J Global Optim 6:109–33MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Fonseca C, Fleming PJ (1993) Genetic algorithm for multiobjective optimization: formulation, discussion and generalization. In: Forrest S (ed) Proceedings of 5th international conference on genetic algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, pp 17–22Google Scholar
  18. Fonseca C, Fleming PJ (1996) An overview of evolutionary algorithms in multiobjective optimzation. Evol Comput 3:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garey MR, Johnson DS (1979) Computers and intractability: a guide to the theory of NP-completeness. Freeman, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Gen M, Cheng R (2000) Genetic algorithms & engineering optimization. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Ghosh JB (1996) Computational aspects of the maximum diversity problem. Oper Res Lett 19:175–181Google Scholar
  22. Goldberg D (1989) Genetic algorithm in search. Optimization and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, MAMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Jensen PA, Barnes JW (1980) Network flow programming. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson PE, Joy DS, Clarke DB (1992) An enhancement routing model: program, description, methodology and revised user’s manual. Technical report, Oak Ridge National LaboratoriesGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt CD, Vecchi MP (1983) Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220:671–679MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Klingman D, Napier A, Stutz J (1974) A program for generating large scale capacitated assignment, transportation, and minimum-cost flow network problems. Manag Sci 20:814–820CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuby M, Xu Z, Xie X (1997) A minimax method for finding the \(k\) best differentiated paths. Geogr Anal 29:298–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lepofsky M, Abkowitz M, Cheng P (1993) Transportation hazard analysis in integrated GIS environment. Transp Eng 119:239–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. List GF, Mirchandani PB, Turnquist MA, Zografos KG (1991) Modeling and analysis for hazardous materials transportation: risk analysis, routing/scheduling and facility location. Transp Sci 25:100–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liu L, Mu H (2012) An oriented spanning tree based genetic algorithm for multi-criteria shortest path problems. Appl Soft Comput 12:506–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu L, Mu H (2014) A simulated annealing for multi-criteria optimization problem: DBMOSA. Swarm Evol Comput 14:48–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liu L, Mu H, Luo H, Li X (2012) A simulated annealing for multi-criteria network path problems. Comput Oper Res 39:3119–3135MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Lombard K, Church RL (1993) The gateway shortest path problem: generation of alternative routes for a corridor location problem. Geogr Syst 1:25–45Google Scholar
  34. Marti R, Velarde JLG, Duartec A (2009) Heuristics for the bi-objective path dissimilarity problem. Comput Oper Res 36:2905–2912CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Martins EQV (1984) On a multicriteria shortest path problem. Eur J Oper Res 16:236–245MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Mohamed C, Bassem J, Taicir L (2010) A genetic algorithms to solve the bicriteria shortest path problem. Electron Notes Discret Math 36:851–858CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. Nozick LK, List GF, Turquist MA (1997) Integrated routing and scheduling in hazardous materials transportation. Transp Sci 31:200–215CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Pareto V (1897) Cours d’Économie Politique, Professé à L’Université de Lausanne, vol 2. Pichon, Libraire, Paris (in French)Google Scholar
  39. ReVelle DJ, Cohon C, Shobrys J (1991) Simultaneous siting and routing in the disposal of hazardous wastes. Transp Sci 25:138–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Srinivas N, Deb K (1995) Multiobjective optimization in genetic algorithms. Evol Comput 2:221–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Szidarovsky F, Gershon ME, Dukstein L (1986) Techniques for multiobjective decision making in systems management. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Thyagarajan K, Batta R, Karwan MH, Szczerba RJ (2005) Planning dissimilar paths for military units. Mil Oper Res 10:25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wijeratne AB, Turnquist MA, Mirchandani PB (1993) Multiobjective routing of hazardous materials in stochastic networks. Eur J Oper Res 65:33–43 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(93)90142-A
  44. Zhang J, Hodgson J, Erkut E (2000) Using GIS to assess the risk of hazardous materials transport in networks. Eur J Oper Res 121:316–329CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. Zitzler E (2000) Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: empirical results. Evol Comput 8:173–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Traffic and TransportationLanzhou Jiaotong UniversityLanzhouChina

Personalised recommendations