4.7 Article

A neutrality-based iterated local search for shift scheduling optimization and interactive reoptimization

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH
卷 279, 期 2, 页码 320-334

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2019.06.005

关键词

Scheduling; Reoptimization; Metaheuristic; Neutrality-based iterated local search; Interactive optimization

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [ME 4045/2-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Interactive reoptimization is an approach for progressively adjusting a candidate solution in order to introduce aspects of a problem that have not been entirely captured by the optimization model. In this paper, a reoptimization problem is investigated in the context of staff scheduling. The proposed reoptimization problem is derived from a shift scheduling problem. For solving the initial optimization problem and its reoptimization extension a neutrality-based iterated local search method is proposed. The conducted computational experiments first compare the proposed method against results from the literature on the initial shift scheduling problem. For this first part of the computational experiments, the datasets of the first International Nurse Rostering Competition (INRC2010) are used. The results indicate that the neutrality-based local search method provides on average significantly better solutions than the compared methods on small instances of the benchmark and has similar performance to the best known method for larger instances. In a second part of the experiments, the proposed method is evaluated on the reoptimization problem variant. The results on this second analysis reveal the practical difficulty of adjusting a candidate solution and the need of a global optimization approach, such as the proposed one, for the reoptimization problem. The results also support the fact that the proposed neutrality-based iterated local search metaheuristic is efficient for reoptimizing solutions in a very short time. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. 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