2021
DOI: 10.3390/app11062703
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Performance Comparison between Particle Swarm Optimization and Differential Evolution Algorithms for Postman Delivery Routing Problem

Abstract: Generally, transportation costs account for approximately half of the total operation expenses of a logistics firm. Therefore, any effort to optimize the planning of vehicle routing would be substantially beneficial to the company. This study focuses on a postman delivery routing problem of the Chiang Rai post office, located in the Chiang Rai province of Thailand. In this study, two metaheuristic methods—particle swarm optimization (PSO) and differential evolution (DE)—were applied with particular solution re… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although particle swarm optimization is a popular stochastic optimization method, it may not always provide low-complexity routing algorithms [45,46]. Authors in [47] compared the performance of the particle swarm optimization and differential evolution techniques to find delivery routings with minimum travel distances with quadratic complexity in time and space. This complexity is calculated based on a spatial distance matrix from the deployment to the landing.…”
Section: Complexity Of the Auas Swarm Routing Algorithmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although particle swarm optimization is a popular stochastic optimization method, it may not always provide low-complexity routing algorithms [45,46]. Authors in [47] compared the performance of the particle swarm optimization and differential evolution techniques to find delivery routings with minimum travel distances with quadratic complexity in time and space. This complexity is calculated based on a spatial distance matrix from the deployment to the landing.…”
Section: Complexity Of the Auas Swarm Routing Algorithmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, it does not consistently yield routing algorithms with low complexity [1,20,62]. On the other hand, the paper [63] shows the performance comparisons of particle swarm optimization and differential evolution techniques while identifying delivery routes, with minimal travel distances having quadratic complexity in both time and space. Nevertheless, this complexity has been computed based on a spatial distance matrix derived from the deployment to landing locations [1].…”
Section: Arithmetic Complexity Of the Algorithmmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Remark 1. Since N is fixed after the deployment of the drone swarms, i.e., the number of elements in the antenna array is fixed after the deployments, and followed by the Proposition 2, the RSwarm algorithm has just less than the quadratic complexity, i.e., O(M p ), where p < 2, while comparing with [1,20,[62][63][64][65][66]. Furthermore, the RSwarm algorithm allows one to route a drone swarm with over 100 members, which is an improvement compared to the limitations of the existing AODV-based swarm members [15,59,60].…”
Section: Arithmetic Complexity Of the Algorithmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Liu et al [11] designed a hybrid path-planning algorithm based on optimized reinforcement learning and improved particle swarm optimization to solve the pathplanning problem of intelligent driving vehicles. Halassi et al [12] presented a new multi-objective discrete particle swarm algorithm for the Capacitated vehicle routing problem, and Wisittipanich et al [13] applied two metaheuristic methods with particular solution representation, i.e., particle swarm optimization and differential evolution to find delivery routings with minimum travel distances. Early research often focused on cutting path problems using particle swarm optimization relying on inertia weight and individual and social learning factors.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%