4.7 Article

An iterated local search with multiple perturbation operators and time varying perturbation strength for the aircraft landing problem

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2015.03.007

关键词

Aircraft landing problem; Iterated local search; Meta-heuristics; Airport operation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Landing aircraft safely is an important operation that air traffic controllers have to deal with on a daily basis. For each arriving aircraft a runway and a landing time must be allocated. If these allocations can be done in an efficient way, it could give the airport a competitive advantage. The Aircraft Landing Problem (ALP) aims to minimize the deviation from a preferred target time of each aircraft. It is an NP-hard problem, meaning that we may have to resort to heuristic methods as exact methods may not be suitable, especially as the problem size increases. This paper proposes an iterated local search (ILS) algorithm for the ALP. ILS is a single solution based search methodology that successively invokes a local search procedure to find a local optimum solution. A perturbation operator is used to modify the current solution in order to escape from the local optimum and to provide a new solution for the local search procedure. As different problems and/or instances have,different characteristics, the success of the ILS is highly dependent on the local search, the perturbation operator(s) and the perturbation strength. To address these issues, we utilize four perturbation operators and a time varying perturbation strength which changes as the algorithm progresses. A variable neighborhood descent algorithm is used as our local search. The proposed IIS generates high quality solutions for the ALP benchmark instances taken from the scientific literature, demonstrating its efficiency in terms of both solution quality and computational time. Moreover, the proposed ILS produces new best results for some instances. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据