Behaviour Study of an Evolutionary Design for Permutation Problems

  • Hind Mohammed AliEmail author
  • Christelle BlochEmail author
  • Wahabou AbdouEmail author
  • Pascal Chatonnay
  • François SpiesEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 797)


This paper studies an evolutionary representation/crossover combination for permutation problems, which are met in many application fields. Many efficient methods exist to solve these various variants. Increasing performances of computers also permitted to tackle more complex instances. But real-life applications make new conjunctions of constraints appear every day. Then, searching new complementary ways to tackle efficiently these numerous constraints is still necessary. This paper focuses on such an approach. It deals with evolutionary algorithms, which have been already often used to solve permutation problems. It studies the behaviour of an evolutionary design, based on a Lehmer code representation coupled with a simple n-point crossover. The goal is not to propose a new problem-tailored method which provides good performances for solving a given variant of problem or for a given class of benchmarks. The paper uses various measures to study the transmission of properties from parents to children, and the behaviour in terms of exploitation and exploration. The paper gives a review on related works, illustrates the issues which remain quite ill-understood for this representation and also gives experimental results by comparison with the permutation encoding more classically used in the literature.


Artificial intelligence Permutation optimization problems Evolutionary representation-crossover design 


  1. 1.
    Crainic TG, Perboli G, Rosano M (2017) Simulation of intermodal freight transportation systems: a taxonomy. Eur J Oper Res 270:401MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Crainic TG, Nguyen PK, Toulouse M (2016) Synchronized multi-trip multi-traffic pickup & delivery in city logistics. Transp Res Procedia 12:26–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Prodhon C, Prins C (2016) Metaheuristics for vehicle routing problems. Springer, Berlin, pp 407–437Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lehmer DH (1960) Teaching combinatorial tricks to a computer. Proc Sympos Appl Math Comb Anal 10:179–193MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reinelt G (1991) TSPLIB- a traveling salesman problem library. ORSA J Comput 3(4):376–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Irnich S, Toth P, Vigo D (2014) The family of vehicle routing problems. Veh Routing: Prob Methods Appl 18:1–36Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Braekers K, Ramaekers K, Van Nieuwenhuyse I (2016) The vehicle routing problem: state of the art classification and review. Comput Ind Eng 99(Supplement C):300–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lahyani R, Khemakhem M, Semet F (2015) Rich vehicle routing problems: from a taxonomy to a definition. Eur J Oper Res 241(1):1–14MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Montoya-Torres JR, Franco JL, Isaza SN, Jimnez HF, Herazo-Padilla N (2015) A literature review on the vehicle routing problem with multiple depots. Comput Ind Eng 79(Supplement C):115–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cherif-Khettaf WR, Rachid MH, Bloch C, Chatonnay P (2015) New notation and classification scheme for vehicle routing problems. RAIRO-Oper Res 49(1):161–194MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Di Mascolo M, Espinouse M-L, El Hajri Z (2017) Planning in home health care structures: a literature review. IFAC-PapersOnLine 50(1):4654–4659 (2017 20th IFAC World Congress)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rothlauf F (2014) Representations for evolutionary algorithms. In: Proceedings of the companion publication of the 2014 annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, GECCO Comp’14, New York, NY, USA. ACM, New York, pp 323–344Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holland JH (1992) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems: an introductory analysis with applications to biology, control, and artificial intelligence. MIT press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Peško Š (2006) Differential evolution for small TSPs with constraints. In: Fourth international scientific conference: challenges in transport and communications, pp 14–15Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Üçoluk G (2002) Genetic algorithm solution of the TSP avoiding special crossover and mutation. Intell Autom Soft Comput 8(3):265–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goldberg DE (1989) Genetic algorithms in search, optimization and machine learning, 1st edn. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing. Co., Inc, Boston, MAzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Portmann, M-C, Vignier A (2000) Performances’ study on crossover operators keeping good schemata for some scheduling problems. In: Proceedings of the 2nd annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., Los Altos, CA, pp 331–338Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ronald S (April 1997) Distance functions for order-based encodings. In: IEEE international conference on evolutionary computation, pp 49–54Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Djerid L, Portmann M-C, Villon P (1996) Performance analysis of permutation crossover genetic operators. J Decis Syst 5(1–2):157–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FEMTO-ST Institute Univ. Bourgogne Franche-Comté, CNRSMontbéliardFrance
  2. 2.Univ. Bourgogne Franche-Comté, LE2IDijonFrance

Personalised recommendations