1999
DOI: 10.1109/25.775374
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A new strategy for the application of genetic algorithms to the channel-assignment problem

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
60
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2012
2012

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 81 publications
(61 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
60
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The lower bound for each of the problems is also listed. It is seen that the methods proposed by Ghosh et al (2003) and Beckmann & Killat (1999) are able to solve each of the benchmark problems optimally. Both of the two approaches are based on genetic algorithms, manifesting the promising direction of solving CAP using metaheuristics.…”
Section: Comparative Resultsmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The lower bound for each of the problems is also listed. It is seen that the methods proposed by Ghosh et al (2003) and Beckmann & Killat (1999) are able to solve each of the benchmark problems optimally. Both of the two approaches are based on genetic algorithms, manifesting the promising direction of solving CAP using metaheuristics.…”
Section: Comparative Resultsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Nonetheless, the HACO spent 10 min for solving either problem 2 or problem 6, the GA-based method in Ghosh et al (2003) spent 12-80 h for solving the two problems. The method in Beckmann & Killat (1999) starts with a lower bound and increases one channel at a time if a feasible channel assignment cannot be found by their algorithm, however, a reachable lower bound is not available in the general cases. The rest of the competing algorithms are based on heuristics, their performances are not comparable to those based on metaheuristics such as GA or ACO.…”
Section: Comparative Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, the existing algorithms require several versions of procedures and/or many repeated runs with different random numbers to reach the optimum solution. For example, the genetic algorithm in [12] can reach the lower bound solution for the hard instance 10 by Sivarajan in only 1 run among 50 runs with different random numbers. Besides, it takes several thousand of iteration steps for convergence.…”
Section: Simulation Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Notice that, it can not be guaranteed that a valid solution is found in a finite number of iterations. Besides, the time required to compute an optimal solution increases exponentially with the size of the problem (Beckmann, 1999;Kunz, 1991;Funabiki, 1992). Thus, it is necessary to develop approximate methods capable of finding at least a near-optimum solution within a reasonable amount of time.…”
Section: Elitism Termination Criteria and Convergencementioning
confidence: 99%