Advertisement

Parameter Tuning Problem in Metaheuristics: A Self-Adaptive Local Search Algorithm for Combinatorial Problems

  • Cigdem Alabas-Uslu
  • Berna DengizEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Women in Engineering and Science book series (WES)

Abstract

Combinatorial optimization is an important mathematical topic that consists of finding an optimal solution from a finite set of search space. Many problems encountered in real life are defined as combinatorial optimization. There is an increasing interest among researchers to develop heuristic algorithms for combinatorial optimization problems, because enumeration based search is not feasible for them. So, obtaining global optimum solutions for these problems, within a reasonable time, is extremely difficult by exact algorithms. Particularly in recent years, high-level metaheuristics have been developed for combinatorial optimization problems. On the other hand, it is known that metaheuristic algorithms are controlled by a set of parameters. The best parameter set reveals better performance such as solution quality and computer times. The process to find the best parameter set is called parameter optimization or parameter tuning that requires a deep learning of the problem structure or a roughly trial-and-error process. An alternative way for tuning is to control parameters through the running of the algorithms. Those algorithms utilize some feedback from the search and change the parameter values adaptively depending on the knowledge. There is a great deal to develop adaptive algorithms for combinatorial optimization problems to overcome the difficulties of parameter tuning. While a survey is carried out about parameter tuning approaches for metaheuristics, the performance of a new self-adaptive local search (SALS) algorithm is introduced in this chapter, and investigated for the vehicle routing problem considering both single and multi-objectives on a large scale suit of test problems.

References

  1. Adenso-Diaz B, Laguna M (2006) Fine-tuning of algorithms using fractional experimental design and local search. Oper Res 54(1):99–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alabas C (2004) Self-controlled local search heuristic for combinatorial optimization problems. PhD theses. Gazi University, AnkaraGoogle Scholar
  3. Alabas-Uslu C (2008) A self-tuning heuristic for a multi-objective vehicle routing problem. J Oper Res Soc 59(7):988–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alabas-Uslu C, Dengiz B (2014) A self-adaptive heuristic algorithm for combinatorial optimization problems. Int J Comput Int Sys 7(5):827–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arin A, Rabadi G, Unal R (2011) Comparative studies on design of experiments for tuning parameters in a genetic algorithm for a scheduling problem. Int J Exp Design Process Optim 2(2):103–124Google Scholar
  6. Balaprakash P, Birattari M, Stutzle T (2007) Improvement strategies for the F-race algorithm: sampling design and iterative refinement. In: BartzBeielstein T, Blesa M, Blum C, Naujoks B, Roli A, Rudolph G, Sampels M (eds) 4th International Workshop on Hybrid Metaheuristics, Proceedings, HM 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4771. Springer, Berlin, pp 108–122Google Scholar
  7. Barbosa EBM, Senne ELF, Silva MB (2015) Improving the performance of metaheuristics: an approach combining response surface methodology and racing algorithms. Int J Eng Math 2015:9.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/167031 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Bartz-Beielstein T (2006) Experimental research in evolutionary computation: the new experimentalism, Natural Computing Series. Springer Verlag, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Battiti R, Brunato M (2010) Reactive search optimization: learning while optimizing. Chap. In: Gendreau M, Potvin JY (eds) Handbook of metaheuristics, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  10. Battiti R, Tecchiolli G (1994) The reactive tabu search. INFORMS J Comput 6(2):126–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Battiti R, Brunato M, Mascia F (2008) Reactive search and intelligent optimization, Operations research/Computer Science Interfaces, vol 45. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Birattari M, Stutzle T, Paquete L and Varrentrapp K (2002). A racing algorithm for configuring metaheuristics. Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, 11–18, GECCO’02Google Scholar
  13. Christofides N, Elion S (1969) An algorithm for the vehicle dispatching problem. Oper Res Quart 20:309–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Corberán A, Fernández E, Laguna M, Martí R (2002) Heuristic solutions to the problem of routing school buses with multiple objectives. J Oper Res Soc 53(4):427–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coy SP, Golden BL, Runger GC, Wasil EA (2000) Using experimental design to find effective parameter settings for heuristics. J Heuristics 7:77–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Jong K (2007) Parameter settings in EAs: a 30 year perspective. In: Lobo FG, Lima CF, Michalewicz Z (eds) Parameter setting in evolutionary algorithms, Studies in computational intelligence. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  17. Dengiz B, Alabas-Uslu C (2015) A self-tuning heuristic for design of communication networks. J Oper Res Soc 66(7):1101–1114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dengiz B, Alabas-Uslu C, Sabuncuoğlu I (2009) A local search heuristic with self-tuning parameter for permutation flow-shop scheduling problem. In: IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Scheduling. CI-Sched’09, April 2–March 30, Nashville, TN, pp 62–67Google Scholar
  19. Dobslaw F (2010) A parameter tuning framework for metaheuristics based on design of experiments and artificial neural networks. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Mathematics and Natural Computing, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  20. Eberhart R, Kennedy J (1995) A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science, pp 39–43Google Scholar
  21. Eiben AE, Hinterding R, Michalewicz Z (1999) Parameter control in evolutionary algorithms. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 3(2):124–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eiben AE, Michalewicz Z, Schoenauer M, Smith JE (2007) Parameter control in evolutionary algorithms. In: Lobo FG, Lima CF, Michalewicz Z (eds) Parameter setting in evolutionary algorithms. Studies in computational intelligence. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 19–46Google Scholar
  23. Glover F (1986) Future paths for integer programming and links to artificial intelligence. Comput Oper Res 13:533–549MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Golden BL, Wasil EA, Kelly JP, Chao I-M (1998) The impact of metaheuristics on solving the vehicle routing problem: algorithms, problem sets, and computational results. In: Crainic TG, Laporte G (eds) Fleet management and logistics. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  25. Groër C, Golden B, Wasil E (2011) A parallel algorithm for the vehicle routing problems. INFORMS J Comput 23:315–330MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hansen N, Ostermeier A (2001) Completely derandomized self-adaptation in evolution strategies. Evol Comput 9(2):159–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harik GR, Lobo FG (1999) A parameter-less genetic algorithm. In: Banzhaf W, Daida J, Eiben AE, Garzon MH, Honavar V, Jakiela M, Smith RE (eds) GECCO-99: proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference. Morgan Kaufmann, SanFrancisco, pp 258–267Google Scholar
  28. Hutter F, Hoos H, Stutzle T (2007) Automatic algorithm configuration based on local search. In: Proceedings of the twenty-second conference on Artificial intelligence (AAAI’07), pp 1152–1157Google Scholar
  29. Hutter F, Hoos HH, Leyton-Brown K, Stützle T (2009) ParamILS: an automatic algorithm configuration framework. J Artif Intell Res 36:267–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krasnogor N, Gustafson S (2004) A study on the use of “self-generation” in memetic algorithms. Nat Comput Int J 3(1):53–76MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Li F, Golden B, Wasil E (2005) Vey large-scale vehicle routing: new test problems, algorithms, and results. Comput Oper Res 32:1165–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lima CF, Lobo FG (2004) Parameter-less optimization with the extended compact genetic algorithm and iterated local search. In: Proceedings of the genetic and evolutionary computation conference GECCO-2004, part I, LNCS 3102, Springer, pp 1328–1339Google Scholar
  33. Lobo FG, Goldberg DE (2004) Parameter-less genetic algorithm in practice. Inf Sci 167(217):232zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. López-Ibáñez M, Dubois-Lacoste J, Cáceres LP, Birattari M, Stützle T (2016) The irace package: iterated racing for automatic algorithm configuration. Oper Res Perspect 3:43–58MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Meissner M, Schmuker M, Schneider G (2006) Optimized particle swarm optimization (OPSO) and its application to artificial neural network training. BMC Bioinform 7:125.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-7-125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mester D, Braysy O (2007) Active-guided evolution strategies for large-scale capacitated vehicle routing problems. Comput Oper Res 34:2964–2975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nadi F, Khader AT (2011) A parameter-less genetic algorithm with customized crossover and mutation operators. In: Proceedings of the 13th annual conference on genetic and evolutionary computation, pp 901–908Google Scholar
  38. Nannen V, Eiben AE (2006) A method for parameter calibration and relevance estimation in evolutionary algorithms. In: Proceedings of genetic and evolutionary computation conference, GECCO 2006, ACM, pp 183–190Google Scholar
  39. Neumüller C, Wagner S, Kronberger G, Affenzeller M (2011) Parameter meta-optimization of metaheuristic optimization algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on Computer Aided Systems Theory, EUROCAST'11, Part I, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain, pp 367–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pacheco J, Marti R (2006) Tabu search for a multi-objective routing problem. J Oper Res Soc 57:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Prins C (2004) A simple and effective evolutionary algorithm for the vehicle routing problem. Comput Oper Res 31:1985–2002MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reimann M, Doerner K, Hartl RF (2004) D-ants: saving based ants divide and conquer the vehicle routing problem. Comput Oper Res 31(4):563–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ries J, Beullens P, Salt D (2012) Instance-specific multi-objective parameter tuning based on fuzzy logic. Eur J Oper Res 218:305–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Robert H, Zbigniew M, Thomas CP (1996) Self-adaptive genetic algorithm for numeric functions. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on parallel problem solving from nature, Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  45. Sait SM, Youssef H (1999) Iterative computer algorithms with applications in engineering. In: IEEE computer society, Los–AlamitosGoogle Scholar
  46. Silberholz J, Golden B (2010) Comparison of metaheuristics. In: Gendreau M, Potvin JY (eds) Handbook of metaheuristics, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith JE (2003) Co-evolving memetic algorithms: a learning approach to robust scalable optimisation. In: Proceedings of the 2003 congress on evolutionary computation, pp 498–505Google Scholar
  48. Smith SK, Eiben AE (2009) Comparing parameter tuning methods for evo-lutionary algorithms. In: IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, pp 399–406Google Scholar
  49. Sörensen K, Sevausx M, Glover F (2017) A history of metaheuristics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.00853Google Scholar
  50. Tarantilis CD (2005) Solving the vehicle routing problem with adaptive memory programming methodology. Comput Oper Res 32(9):2309–2327MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tarantilis CD, Kiranoudis CT (2002) BoneRoute: an adaptive memory-based method for effective fleet management. Ann Oper Res 115(1):227–241MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tarantilis CD, Kiranoudis CT, Vassiliadis VS (2002a) A backtracking adaptive threshold accepting metaheuristic method for the vehicle routing problem. Syst Anal Model Simul 42(5):631–644MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tarantilis CD, Kiranoudis CT, Vassiliadis VS (2002b) A list based threshold accepting algorithm for the capacitated vehicle routing problem. J Comput Math 79(5):537–553zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  54. Toth P, Vigo D (2003) The granular tabu search (and its application to the vehicle routing problem). INFORMS J Comput 15(4):333–348MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wolpert DH, Macready WG (1997) No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Trans Evol Comput 1(1):67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Xu J, Kelly JP (1996) A network flow-based tabu search heuristic for the vehicle routing problem. Transp Sci 30(4):379–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringMarmara UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Industrial EngineeringBaşkent UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations