Direct Representation and Variation Operators for the Fixed Charge Transportation Problem

  • Christoph Eckert
  • Jens Gottlieb
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2439)


The fixed charge transportation problem (FCTP) has been tackled by evolutionary algorithms (EAs) using representations like permutations, Prüfer numbers, or matrices. We present a new direct representation that restricts search to basic solutions and allows using problem- specific variation operators. This representation is compared w. r. t. locality and performance to permutations and Prüfer numbers. It clearly outperforms all other EAs and even reaches the solution quality of tabu search, the most successful heuristic for the FCTP we are aware of.


Tabu Search Mutation Operator Basic Solution Solution Quality Transportation Plan 
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.
    B. Freisleben and P. Merz. New genetic local search operators for the traveling salesman problem. In Proc. of PPSN IV, 890–899, 1996Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Gottlieb and C. Eckert. A comparison of two representations for the fixed charge transportation problem. In Proc. of PPSN VI, 345–354, 2000Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Gottlieb, B. A. Julstrom, G. R. Raidl and F. Rothlauf. Prüfer numbers: a poor representation of spanning trees for evolutionary search. In Proc. of Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, 343–350, 2001Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Gottlieb and L. Paulmann. Genetic algorithms for the fixed charge transportation problem. In Proc. of 5th IEEE Int. Conf. on Evol. Comp., 330–335, 1998Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Gottlieb and G. R. Raidl. Characterizing locality in decoder-based EAs for the multidimensional knapsack problem. In Proc. of Artificial Evolution, 38–52, 1999Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G. M. Guisewite and P. M. Pardalos. Minimum concave-cost network flow problems: Applications, complexity, and algorithms. Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 25, 75–100, 1990zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Y. Li, M. Gen and K. Ida. Fixed charge transportation problem by spanning treebased genetic algorithm. Beijing Mathematics, Vol. 4, No. 2, 239–249, 1998Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. L. Nemhauser and L. A. Wolsey. Integer and combinatorial optimization. Wiley, 1998Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. C. Palmer and A. Kershenbaum. Representing trees in genetic algorithms. In Proc. of 1st IEEE Conf. on Evolutionary Computation, 379–384, 1994Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. R. Raidl and J. Gottlieb. On the importance of phenotypic duplicate elimination in decoder-based evolutionary algorithms. In Late Breaking Papers at the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, 204–211, 1999Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. Sun, J. E. Aronson, P. G. McKeown and D. Drinka. A tabu search heuristic procedure for the fixed charge transportation problem. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 106, 441–456, 1998zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. A. Vignaux and Z. Michalewicz. A genetic algorithm for the linear transportation problem. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 21, No. 2, 445–452, 1991zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Eckert
    • 1
  • Jens Gottlieb
    • 1
  1. 1.SAP AGWalldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations