Quality issues with shift end position about vrp HOT 9 OPEN

My guess it is related to search path in solution space: the variant b is open VRP and it leads to more efficient search path as there is no constraint for returning to depot. Also the quality depends on amount of time given to the solver: maybe try to increase it if it is too short.

from vrp.

I tried it with calculation Time of up to 20 Minutes without significant change.

What surprises me is the big difference between the two constraints. I expected a small hit due to the "return" constraint, but not that huge.

from vrp.

This would be interesting to analyze as better solution is kind of already known. I'm working on experimental hyper-heuristic (hyperh branch) which might improve results a bit, but hard to say for sure.

Btw, how many jobs and vehicles are defined in original problem?

from vrp.

29 Vehicles, 1650 Jobs. I saw the same effect while experimenting with larger dataset. I haven't researched small ones yet

from vrp.

Can you try to run the problem using https://github.com/reinterpretcat/vrp/tree/hyperh branch? Just curious will it improve a bit results or not.

from vrp.

sure! compiling right now

from vrp.

The initial Solution is reproducable better. Even though it isn't solving the problem. ( I executed the Problem multiple times )

Hyper: rank: 0, cost: 3512.12(0.000%), tours: 29, unassigned: 451, fitness: (451.000, 3512.124, 0.125) (Down to 350 after 3 Minutes)
Cur Release: rank: 0, cost: 3514.88(0.000%), tours: 29, unassigned: 488, fitness: (488.000, 3514.876, 0.099)

Looking at the large number of unassigned it is nearly impossible for the algorithm to get a "complete" solution. VRP Mode starts as an initial solution with 0 unassigned and - if i remember correctly - one or two vehicles less.

Edit: As a long shot i tried seeding it with a mostly proper solution - hoping that it adapts. Sadly without success.

from vrp.

It looks like you're using balancing objective (third one in fitness). It is a bit experimental as it's performance depends on tolerance and threshold parameters which user needs to set. Have you tried to play with their values?

Also it is important how primary and secondary objectives are defined. Do you have minimize-unassigned as primary and minimize-cost and balance as secondary objectives?

from vrp.

I use more or less defaults -
"objectives": { "primary": [{ "type": "minimize-tours" }, { "type": "minimize-unassigned" }], "secondary": [{ "type": "minimize-cost" }] }

I'll try to anonymize the dataset without hiding the base issue and provide it by mail like last time. I think this will work better than remote diagnosis.

Edit: I experimented with balancing - but it shows the same effect like discussed above. Just even worse. In this example we're talking round about 700 unassigned

from vrp.