Search Space Analysis of the Linear Ordering Problem

  • Tommaso Schiavinotto
  • Thomas Stützle
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2611)


The Linear Ordering Problem (LOP) is an NP-hard combinatorial optimization problem that arises in a variety of applications and several algorithmic approaches to its solution have been proposed. However, few details are known about the search space characteristics of LOP instances. In this article we develop a detailed study of the LOP search space. The results indicate that, in general, LOP instances show high fitness-distance correlations and large autocorrelation length but also that there exist significant differences between real-life and randomly generated LOP instances. Because of the limited size of real-world instances, we propose new, randomly generated large real-life like LOP instances which appear to be much harder than other randomly generated instances. Additionally, we propose a rather straightforward Iterated Local Search algorithm, which shows better performance than several state-of-the-art heuristics.


Local Search Global Optimum Local Search Algorithm Matrix Entry Scatter Search 
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.
    O. Becker. Das Helmstädtersche Reihenfolgeproblem-die Effizienz verschiedener Näherungsverfahren. In Computer uses in the Social Science,Wien, January 1967.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    V. Campos, M. Laguna, and R. Martí. Scatter search for the linear ordering problem. In D. Corne et al., editor, New Ideas in Optimization, pages 331–339. McGraw-Hill, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Chanas and P. Kobylanski. A new heuristic algorithm solving the linear ordering problem. Computational Optimization and Applications, 6:191–205, 1996.zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    T. Christof and G. Reinelt. Low-dimensional linear ordering polytopes. Technical report, University of Heidelberg, Germany, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. K. Congram. Polynomially Searchable Exponential Neighbourhoods for Sequencing Problems in Combinatorial Optimisation. PhD thesis, University of Southampton, Faculty of Mathematical Studies, UK, 2000.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Grötschel, M. Jünger, and G. Reinelt. A cutting plane algorithm for the linear ordering problem. Operations Research, 32(6):1195–1220, 1984.zbMATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Grötschel, M. Jünger, and G. Reinelt. Optimal triangulation of large real world input-output matrices. Statistische Hefte, 25:261–295, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    H.H. Hoos and T. Stützle. Evaluating Las Vegas algorithms-pitfalls and remedies. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-98), pages 238–245. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. Jones and S. Forrest. Fitness distance correlation as a measure of problem difficulty for genetic algorithms. In L.J. Eshelman, editor, Proc. of the 6th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms, pages 184–192. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. E. Knuth. The Stanford GraphBase: A Platform for Combinatorial Computing. Addison Wesley, NewYork, 1993.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Laguna, R. Martí, and V. Campos. Intensification and diversification with elite tabu search solutions for the linear ordering problem. Computers and Operation Research, 26:1217–1230, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. R. Lourenço, O. Martin, and T. Stützle. Iterated local search. In F. Glover and G. Kochenberger, editors, Handbook of Metaheuristics, volume 57 of International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, pages 321–353. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. Merz and B. Freisleben. Fitness landscapes and memetic algorithm design. In D. Corne, M. Dorigo, and F. Glover, editors, New Ideas in Optimization, pages 245–260. McGraw-Hill, London, 1999.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. E. Mitchell and B. Borchers. Solving linear ordering problems with a combined interior point/simplex cutting plane algorithm. In H. L. Frenk et al., editor, High Performance Optimization, pages 349–366. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2000.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    C. R. Reeves. Landscapes, operators and heuristic search. Annals of Operational Research, 86:473–490, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    P. Stadler. Towards a theory of landscapes. In R. Lopéz-Peña, R. Capovilla, R. García-Pelayo, H. Waelbroeck, and F. Zertuche, editors, Complex Systems and Binary Networks, volume 461, pages 77–163, Berlin, NewYork, 1995. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    P. Stadler. Landscapes and their correlation functions. J. of Math. Chemistry, 20:1–45, 1996.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation. SPEC CPU95 and CPU2000 Benchmarks., November 2002.
  19. 19.
    E. D. Weinberger. Correlated and uncorrelated fitness landscapes and howto tell the difference. Biological Cybernetics, 63:325–336, 1990.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tommaso Schiavinotto
    • 1
  • Thomas Stützle
    • 1
  1. 1.Intellectics GroupDarmstadt University of TechnologyDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations