Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Algorithm for Finding Valid Cycles in an Improvement Graph #588

Open
christophgruene opened this issue May 30, 2018 · 0 comments
Open

Algorithm for Finding Valid Cycles in an Improvement Graph #588

christophgruene opened this issue May 30, 2018 · 0 comments

Comments

@christophgruene
Copy link

Searching very large-scale neighborhoods (VLSN) is a meta heuristic for optimization problems. One defines the neighborhood by certain operations for example for TSP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lin%E2%80%93Kernighan_heuristic).
After the definition of these operations, one can define the corresponding cyclic-exchange or multi-exchange neighborhood. In the process of finding one or the best improvement in such a neighborhood, building an improvement graph is a usual method. An picturesque example is a cyclic exchange neighborhood search heuristic for k-PARTITION. In there, we move in a cyclic fashion elements from one set in the partition to other sets such that we get an improvement for our solution to the k-PARTITION instance.
Based on the paper http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.15.6758&rep=rep1&type=pdf, we want to implement an algorithm that finds the shortest valid cycle in the improvement graph in order to use it in VLSN or local searchs. Finding such a cycle is NP-hard such that this algorithm runs exponential time.

Does this fit the scope of this library?

@christophgruene christophgruene changed the title Algorithm for Finding Valid Cycles in an Improvenment Graph Algorithm for Finding Valid Cycles in an Improvement Graph May 30, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants