A template for scatter search and path relinking

  • Fred Glover
Invited Paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1363)


Scatter search and its generalized form called path relinking are evolutionary methods that have recently been shown to yield promising outcomes for solving combinatorial and nonlinear optimization problems. Based on formulations originally proposed in the 1960s for combining decision rules and problem constraints, these methods use strategies for combining solution vectors that have proved effective for scheduling, routing, financial product design, neural network training, optimizing simulation and a variety of other problem areas. These approaches can be implemented in multiple ways, and offer numerous alternatives for exploiting their basic ideas. We identify a template for scatter search and path relinking methods that provides a convenient and “user friendly” basis for their implementation. The overall design can be summarized by a small number of key steps, leading to versions of scatter search and path relinking that are fully specified upon providing a handful of subroutines. Illustrative forms of these subroutines are described that make it possible to create methods for a wide range of optimization problems.


Tabu Search Candidate List Trial Solution Scatter Search Seed Solution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Consiglio, A. and S.A. Zenios (1996). “Designing Portfolios of Financial Products via Integrated Simulation and Optimization Models,” Report 96-05, Department of Public and Business Administration, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, CYPRUS, to appear in Operations Research. []]Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Consiglio, A. and S.A. Zenios (1997). “a Model for Designing Callable Bonds and its Solution Using Tabu Search.” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 21, 1445–1470. []Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Crowston, W.B., F. Glover, G.L.Thompson and J.D. Trawick (1963). Probabilistic and Parametric Learning Combinations of Local Job Shop Scheduling Rules,” ONR Research Memorandum No. 117, GSIA, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cung, V-D., T. Mautor, P. Michelon, A. Tavares (1996). “Scatter Search for the Quadratic Assignment Problem”, Laboratoire PRISM-CNRS URA 1525. []Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis, L., ed. (1991). Handbook of Genetic Algorithms, Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fisher, H. and G.L. Thompson (1963). “Probabilistic Learning Combinations of Local Job-Shop Scheduling Rules,” Industrial Scheduling, J.F. Muth and G.L. Thompson, eds., Prentice-Hall. 225–251.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fleurent, C., F. Glover, P. Michelon and Z. Valli (1996). “A Scatter Search pproach for Unconstrained Continuous Optimization,” Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, 643–648.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Freville, A. and G. Plateau (1986). “Heuristics and Reduction Methods for Multiple Constraint 0-1 Linear Programming Problems,” European Journal of Operational Research, 24,206–215.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Freville, A. and G. Plateau (1993). “An Exact Search for the Solution of the Surrogate Dual of the 0-1 Bidimensional Knapsack Problem,” European Journal of Operational Research, 68,413–421.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Glover, F. (1963). “Parametric Combinations of Local Job Shop Rules,” Chapter IV, ONR Research Memorandum no. 117, GSIA, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Glover, F. (1965). “A Multiphase Dual Algorithm for the Zero-One Integer Programming Problem,” Operations Research, Vol 13, No 6, 879.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Glover, F. (1968). “Surrogate Constraints,” Operations Research, 16, 741–749.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Glover, F. (1975). “Surrogate Constraint Duality in Mathematical Programming,” Operations Research, 23, 434–451.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Glover, F. (1977). “Heuristics for Integer Programming Using Surrogate Constraints,” Decision Sciences, Vol 8, No 1, 156–166.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glover, F. (1992). “Ejection Chains, Reference Structures and Alternating Path Methods for Traveling Salesman Problems,” University of Colorado. Shortened version published in Discrete Applied Mathematics, 1996, 65, 223–253. [ (under Publications)]Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Glover, F. (1994a). “Genetic Algorithms and Scatter Search: Unsuspected Potentials,” Statistics and Computing, 4, 131–140. [ (under Publications)]Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Glover, F. (1994b). “Tabu Search for Nonlinear and Parametric Optimization (with Links to Genetic Algorithms),” Discrete Applied Mathematics, 49, 231–255. [ (under Publications)]Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Glover, F. (1995). “Scatter Search and Star-Paths: Beyond the Genetic Metaphor,” OR Spectrum, 17, 125–137. [ (under Publications)]Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Glover, F., J. P. Kelly and M. Laguna (1996). “New Advances and Applications of Combining Simulation and Optimization,” Proceedings of the 1996 Winter Simulation Conference, J. M. Charnes, D. J. Morrice, D. T. Brunner, and J. J. Swain (Eds.), 144–152. [ (under OptQuest heading)]Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Glover, F. and M. Laguna (1997). Tabu Search, Kluwer Academic Publishers. [ (under Tabu Search heading)]Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goldberg, D. E. (1989). Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning, Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Greenberg, H. J. and Pierskalla, W.P. (1970). “Surrogate Mathematical Programs,” Operations Research, 18, 924–939.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Holland, J.H. (1975). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karwan, M.H. and R.L. Rardin (1976). “Surrogate Dual Multiplier Search Procedures in Integer Programming,” School of Industrial Systems Engineering, Report Series No. 7-77-13, Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karwan, M.H. and R.L. Rardin (1979). “Some Relationships Between Lagrangean and Surrogate Duality in Integer Programming,” Mathematical Programming, 17, 230–334.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kelly, J., B. Rangaswamy and J. Xu (1996). “A Scatter Search-Based Learning Algorithm for Neural Network Training,” Journal of Heuristics, Vol. 2, pp. 129–146.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Laguna, M. and R. Marti (1997). “GRASP and Path Relinking for 2-Layer Straight Line Crossing Minimization,” Research Report, University of Colorado []]Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Laguna, M. (1997). “Optimizing Complex Systems with OptQuest,” Research Report, University of Colorado, []Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Laguna, M., R. Martí and V. Campos (1997). “Tabu Search with Path Relinking for the Linear Ordering Problem,” Research Report, University of Colorado. [ Scholar
  30. 30.
    Muhlenbein, H. (1997). “The Equation for the Response to Selection and its Use for Prediction,” to appear in Evolutionary Computation. []]Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rana, S. and D. Whitley (1997). “Bit Representations with a Twist,” Proc. 7th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, T. Baeck ed. pp: 188–196, Morgan Kaufman. []]Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rego, C. (1996). “Relaxed Tours and Path Ejections for the Traveling Salesman Problems,” to appear in the European Journal of Operational Research. []Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rego, C. and C. Roucairol (1996). “A Parallel Tabu Search Algorithm Using Ejection Chains for the Vehicle Routing Problem,” in Meta-Heuristics: Theory & Applications, 661–675, I.H. Osman and J.P. Kelly, (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers. []Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Reeves, C.R. (1997). “Genetic Algorithms for the Operations Researcher,” to appear in INFORMS Journal on Computing (with commentaries and rejoinder).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rochat, Y. and É. D. Taillard (1995). “Probabilistic diversification and intensification in local search for vehicle routing”. Journal of Heuristics 1, 147–167. []Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Taillard, É. D. (1996). “A heuristic column generation method for the heterogeneous VRP”, Publication CRT-96-03, Centre de recherche sur les transports, Université de Montréal. To appear in RAIRO-OR. []Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Whitley, D. and J. Kauth, (1988). “GENITOR: A Different Genetic Algorithm,” Proceedings of the 1988 Rocky Mountain Conference on Artificial Intelligence.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Whitley, D. (1989). The GENITOR Algorithm and Selective Pressure: Why Rank Based Allocation of Reproductive Trials is Best, Morgan Kaufmann, J. D. Schaffer, ed., pp. 116–121.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Yamada, T. and C. Reeves (1997). “Permutation Flowshop Scheduling by Genetic Local Search,” 2nd IEE/IEEE Int. Conf. on Genetic Algorithms in Engineering Systems (GALESIA '97), pp. 232–238, Glasglow, UK.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yamada, T. and R. Nakano (1996). “Scheduling by Genetic Local Search with Multi-Step Crossover,” 4th International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, 960–969.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fred Glover
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Business, CB 419University of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations