Advertisement

A Cooperative Optimization Approach for Distributing Service Points in Mobility Applications

  • Thomas JatschkaEmail author
  • Tobias RodemannEmail author
  • Günther R. RaidlEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11452)

Abstract

We investigate a variant of the facility location problem concerning the optimal distribution of service points with incomplete information within a certain geographical area. The application scenario is generic in principle, but we have the setup of charging stations for electric vehicles or rental stations for bicycles or cars in mind. When planning such systems, estimating under which conditions which customer demand can be fulfilled is fundamental in order to evaluate and optimize possible solutions. In this paper we present a cooperative optimization approach for distributing service points that incorporates potential customers not only in the data acquisition but also during the optimization process. A surrogate objective function is used to evaluate intermediate solutions during the optimization. The quality of this surrogate objective function is iteratively improved by learning from the feedback of potential users given to candidate solutions. For the actual optimization we consider a population based iterated greedy algorithm. Experiments on artificial benchmark scenarios with idealized simulated user behavior show the learning capabilities of the surrogate objective function and the effectiveness of the optimization.

Keywords

Cooperative optimization Facility location problem Surrogate objective function Metaheuristics 

References

  1. 1.
    Cavadas, J., Homem, G.d.A.C., Gouveia, J.: A MIP model for locating slow-charging stations for electric vehicles in urban areas accounting for driver tours. Transp. Res. Part E Log. Transp. Rev. 75, 188–201 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen, T., Kockelman, K.M., Khan, M.: The electric vehicle charging station location problem: a parking-based assignment method for Seattle. In: 92nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board in Washington DC (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Church, R., ReVelle, C.: The maximal covering location problem. Pap. Reg. Sci. 32, 101–118 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cornuéjols, G., Nemhauser, G.L., Wolsey, L.A.: The uncapacitated facility location problem. In: Mirchandani, P.B., Francis, R.L. (eds.) Discrete Location Theory, pp. 119–171. Wiley, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fails, J.A., Olsen Jr., D.R.: Interactive machine learning. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 39–45. IUI 2003. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Farahani, R.Z., Hekmatfar, M.: Facility Location: Concepts, Models, Algorithms and Case Studies. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-2151-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Forrester, A., Andras, S., Keane, A.: Engineering Design via Surrogate Modelling: A Practical Guide. Wiley, New York (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Forrester, A.I., Keane, A.J.: Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 45(1), 50–79 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frade, I., Ribeiro, A., Gonçalves, G., Antunes, A.: Optimal location of charging stations for electric vehicles in a neighborhood in Lisbon, Portugal. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2252, 91–98 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gavalas, D., Konstantopoulos, C., Pantziou, G.: Design and management of vehicle-sharing systems: a survey of algorithmic approaches. In: Obaidat, M.S., Nicopolitidi, P. (eds.) Smart Cities and Homes, pp. 261–289. Elsevier (2016)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Laporte, G., Nickel, S., da Gama, F.S. (eds.): Location Science. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13111-5CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haykin, S.: Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holzinger, A.: Interactive machine learning for health informatics: when do we need the human-in-the-loop? Brain Inf. 3(2), 119–131 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kameda, H., Mukai, N.: Optimization of charging station placement by using taxi probe data for on-demand electrical bus system. In: König, A., Dengel, A., Hinkelmann, K., Kise, K., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L.C. (eds.) KES 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 6883, pp. 606–615. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23854-3_64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim, H.S., Cho, S.B.: Application of interactive genetic algorithm to fashion design. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 13(6), 635–644 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Koziel, S., Ciaurri, D.E., Leifsson, L.: Surrogate-based methods. In: Koziel, S., Yang, X.S. (eds.) Computational Optimization, Methods and Algorithms. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol. 356, pp. 33–59. Springer, Heidelberg (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20859-1_3CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Llorà, X., Sastry, K., Goldberg, D.E., Gupta, A., Lakshmi, L.: Combating user fatigue in iGAs: partial ordering, support vector machines, and synthetic fitness. In: Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO 2005, pp. 1363–1370. ACM, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maas, A.L., Hannun, A.Y., Ng, A.Y.: Rectifier nonlinearities improve neural network acoustic models. In: Workshop on Deep Learning for Audio, Speech and Language Processing, ICML 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meignan, D., Knust, S., Frayret, J.M., Pesant, G., Gaud, N.: A review and taxonomy of interactive optimization methods in operations research. ACM Trans. Interact. Intell. Syst. 5(3), 17:1–17:43 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mladenović, N., Hansen, P.: Variable neighborhood search. Comput. Oper. Res. 24(11), 1097–1100 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shi, L., Rasheed, K.: ASAGA: an adaptive surrogate-assisted genetic algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO 2008, pp. 1049–1056. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sun, X.Y., Gong, D., Li, S.: Classification and regression-based surrogate model-assisted interactive genetic algorithm with individual’s fuzzy fitness. In: Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, GECCO 2009, pp. 907–914. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sun, X., Gong, D., Jin, Y., Chen, S.: A new surrogate-assisted interactive genetic algorithm with weighted semisupervised learning. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 43(2), 685–698 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Logic and ComputationTU WienViennaAustria
  2. 2.Honda Research Institute EuropeOffenbach/MainGermany

Personalised recommendations