-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 123
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
More acceptance criteria #75
Comments
Should also check that implementations of current algorithms agree with the reference. For SA/HC I am pretty sure they do, for RRT not entirely. |
I can help with implementing more acceptance criteria. Will submit a pull request when I have a few ready. I'll work through the criteria presented in Santini et al. (2018) and work from top to bottom. |
@leonlan sure! A lot of them seem superficially similar, so it might be possible to reuse a lot of code for (slightly) different acceptance criteria. |
The description of RTRT in Santini et al. (2018) is different from the one you implemented, which follows the original paper by Dueck and Scheuer (1990). # Santini et al. (2018)
result = (candidate.objective() - best.objective()) / best.objective() <= self._threshold
# Dueck and Scheuer (1990)
result = (candidate.objective() - best.objective()) <= self._threshold What is your thoughts on this? Change to Santini's description or keep the original? I might prefer the latter, because it makes semantically more sense to have a threshold on the absolute gap instead of the relative gap. |
I am inclined to keep things as they are. We might add an argument to RRT's init method to select behaviours (e.g., "original" for Dueck and Scheuer, and "santini" for Santini's implementation with the normalised thresholds - with the default being "original"). Then we get the best of both worlds! Odd that Santini implemented such a different version, but they probably had their reasons :-). (good job with the release of v1 of https://github.com/leonlan/pyCVRPLIB! Congrats!) |
OK, will put it on the to-do.
Thanks! I learned a lot from contributing to the ALNS library (e.g., poetry, gh-actions), so thank you for that :) |
Santini et al. (2018) present a lot of them in their paper. I implemented three that seemed promising, but to be thorough we should probably also get the rest in.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: