Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 1/49 Heuristics for the Mirrored Traveling Tournament Problem Celso C. RIBEIRO Sebastián URRUTIA.

Published by Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 1/49 Heuristics for the Mirrored Traveling Tournament Problem Celso C. RIBEIRO Sebastián URRUTIA."— Presentation transcript:

1 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 1/49 Heuristics for the Mirrored Traveling Tournament Problem Celso C. RIBEIRO Sebastián URRUTIA

2 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 2/49 Summary The Mirrored Traveling Tournament Problem Constructive heuristic Neighborhoods and ejection chains Extended GRASP + ILS heuristic Computational results

3 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 3/49 Motivation Game scheduling is a difficult task, involving different types of constraints, logistic issues, multiple objectives, and several decision makers. Total distance traveled is an important variable to be minimized, to reduce traveling costs and to give more time to the players for resting and training. Timetabling is the major area of applications of OR in sports.

4 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 4/49 Formulation Traveling Tournament Problem (TTP) –n (even) teams take part in a tournament. –Each team has its own stadium at its home city. –Distances between the stadiums are known. –A team playing two consecutive away games goes directly from one city to the other, without returning to its home city.

5 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 5/49 Formulation –Tournament is a strict double round- robin tournament: There are 2(n-1) rounds, each one with n/2 games. Each team plays against every other team twice, one at home and the other away. –No team can play more than three games in a home stand (home games) or in a road trip (away games). Goal: minimize the total distance traveled by all teams.

6 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 6/49 Formulation Mirrored Traveling Tournament Problem (MTTP): –All teams face each other once in the first phase with n-1 rounds. –In the second phase with the last n-1 rounds, the teams play each other again in the same order, following an inverted home/away pattern. –Common structure in Latin-American tournaments. Set of feasible solutions for the MTTP is a subset of the feasible solutions for the TTP.

7 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 7/49 1-Factorizations Given a graph G=(V, E), a factor of G is a graph G’=(V,E’) with E’  E. G’ is a 1-factor if all its nodes have degree equal to one. A factorization of G=(V,E) is a set of edge-disjoint factors G 1 =(V,E 1 ),..., G p =(V,E p ), such that E 1 ...  E p =E. All factors in a 1-factorization of G are 1-factors. Oriented 1-factorization: assign orientations to the edges of a 1- factorization

8 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 8/49 Mirrored tournament: games in the second phase are determined by those in the first. –Each edge of K n represents a game. –Each 1-factor of K n represents a round. –Each ordered oriented 1-factorization of K n represents a feasible schedule for n teams. Example: K 6 1-Factorizations 4 3 2 1 5 6

9 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 9/49 1-Factorizations 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6

10 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 10/49 Three steps: 1.Schedule games using abstract teams: polygon method defines the structure of the tournament 2.Assign real teams to abstract teams: greedy heuristic to QAP (number of travels between stadiums of the abstract teams x distances between the stadiums of the real teams) 3.Select stadium for each game (home/away pattern) in the first phase (mirrored tournament): 1.Build a feasible assignment of stadiums, starting from a random assignment of stadiums in the first round. 2.Improve this assignment of stadiums, using a simple local search algorithm based on home- away swaps. Constructive heuristic

11 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 11/49 Constructive heuristic 4 3 2 1 5 6 Example: “polygon method” for n=6 1 st round

12 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 12/49 Constructive heuristic 3 2 1 5 4 6 Example: “polygon method” for n=6 2 nd round

13 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 13/49 Constructive heuristic 2 1 5 4 3 6 Example: “polygon method” for n=6 3 rd round

14 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 14/49 Constructive heuristic 1 5 4 3 2 6 Example: “polygon method” for n=6 4 th round

15 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 15/49 Constructive heuristic 5 4 3 2 1 6 Example: “polygon method” for n=6 5 th round

16 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 16/49 Constructive heuristic Abstract teams (n=6) RoundABCDEF 1/6FEDCBA 2/7DCBAFE 3/8BAEFCD 4/9EDFBAC 5/10CFAEDB

17 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 17/49 Constructive heuristic Step 2: assign real teams to abstract teams –Build a matrix with the number of consecutive games for each pair of abstract teams: For each pair of teams X and Y, an entry in this matrix contains the total number of times in which the other teams play consecutively with X and Y in any order. –Greedily assign pairs of real teams with close home cities to pairs of abstract teams with large entries in the matrix with the number of consecutive games: QAP heuristic

18 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 18/49 Constructive heuristic ABCDEF A016524 B102564 C620253 D552024 E265203 F443430

19 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 19/49 Constructive heuristic Real teams (n=6) RoundFLUSA N FLAGREPALPAY 1/6PAYPALGR E FLASA N FLU 2/7GR E FLASA N FLUPAYPAL 3/8SA N FLUPALPAYFLAGRE 4/9PALGREPAYSA N FLUFLA 5/10FLAPAYFLUPALGR E SA N

20 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 20/49 Constructive heuristic Step 3: select stadium for each game in the first phase of the tournament: –Two-part strategy: Build a feasible assignment of stadiums, starting from a random assignment in the first round. Improve the assignment of stadiums, performing a simple local search algorithm based on home-away swaps.

21 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 21/49 Constructive heuristic Real teams (n=6) RoundFLUSANFLAGREPALPAY 1/6PAY @PA L GRE @FL A SAN @FL U 2/7GRE @FL A SAN @FL U PAY @PA L 3/8 @SA N FLU @PA L PAYFLA @GR E 4/9PAL @GR E @PA Y SAN @FL U FLA 5/10 @FL A PAYFLU @PA L GRE @SA N

22 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 22/49 Neighborhood home-away swap (HAS) 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6

23 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 23/49 Neighborhood home-away swap (HAS) 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6

24 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 24/49 Neighborhood team-swap (TS) 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6

25 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 25/49 Neighborhood team-swap (TS) 4 3 1 2 5 6 4 3 1 2 5 6 4 3 1 2 5 6 4 3 1 2 5 6 4 3 1 2 5 6

26 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 26/49 Neighborhood partial round swap (PRS) 7 4 3 1 8 6 2 5 7 4 3 1 8 6 2 5

27 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 27/49 Neighborhood partial round swap (PRS) 7 4 3 1 8 6 2 5 7 4 3 1 8 6 2 5

28 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 28/49 Ejection chain: game rotation (GR) Neigborhood “game rotation” (GR) (ejection chain): –Enforce a game to be played at some round: add a new edge to a 1-factor of the 1-factorization associated with the current schedule. –Use an ejection chain to recover a 1- factorization.

29 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 29/49 Ejection chain: game rotation (GR) 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6

30 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 30/49 Ejection chain: game rotation (GR) 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 Enforce game (1,3) to be played in round 2

31 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 31/49 Ejection chain: game rotation (GR) 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 Enforce game (1,3) to be played in round 2

32 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 32/49 Ejection chain: game rotation (GR) 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6

33 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 33/49 Ejection chain: game rotation (GR) 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6

34 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 34/49 Ejection chain: game rotation (GR) 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6

35 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 35/49 Ejection chain: game rotation (GR) 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6

36 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 36/49 Ejection chain: game rotation (GR) 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6

37 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 37/49 Ejection chain: game rotation (GR) 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6

38 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 38/49 Ejection chain: game rotation (GR) 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6 4 3 2 1 5 6

39 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 39/49 Neighborhoods Only movements in neighborhoods PRS and GR may change the structure of the initial schedule. However, PRS moves not always exist, due to the structure of the solutions built by polygon method e.g. for n = 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, 20, 24. PRS moves may appear after an ejection chain move is made. The ejection chain move is able to find solutions that are not reachable through other neighborhoods: escape from local optima

40 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 40/49 GRASP + ILS heuristic Hybrid improvement heuristic for the MTTP: –Combination of GRASP and ILS metaheuristics. –Initial solutions: randomized version of the constructive heuristic. –Local search with first improving move: use TS, HAS, PRS and HAS cyclically in this order until a local optimum for all neighborhoods is found. –Perturbation: random movement in GR neighborhood. –Detailed algorithm to appear in EJOR.

41 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 41/49 GRASP + ILS heuristic while.not.StoppingCriterion S  GenerateRandomizedInitialSolution() S  LocalSearch(S) repeat S’  Perturbation(S,history) S’  LocalSearch(S’) S  AceptanceCriterion(S,S’,history) S*  UpdateBestSolution(S,S*) until ReinitializationCriterion end

42 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 42/49 Computational results Circular instances with n = 12,..., 20 teams. MLB instances with n = 12,..., 16 teams. –All available from http://mat.gsia.cmu.edu/TOURN/ http://mat.gsia.cmu.edu/TOURN/ –Largest instances exactly solved to date: n=6 (sequential), n=8 (parallel) Numerical results on a Pentium IV 2.0 MHz. Comparisons with best known solutions for the corresponding less constrained not necessarily mirrored instances (TTP).

43 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 43/49 Computational results Constructive heuristic: –Very fast Instance MLB16: 1000 runs in approximately 1 second –Average gap is 17.1% –Better solutions than those found after several days of computations by some metaheuristic aproaches to the not necessarily mirrrored version of the problem.

44 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 44/49 GRASP + ILS heuristic: time limit is 10 minutes only Before this work, times were measured in days. Largest gap with respect to the best known solution for the less constrained not necessarily mirrored problem was 9,5%. Computational results

45 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 45/49 Computational results Instan ce Best unmirrored Best mirrored gap (%) Time to best (s) circ124204568.68.5 circ146827144.71.1 circ1697610042.9115.3 circ1814201364-3.9284.2 circ2019081882-1.4578.3 nl121122981206557.424.0 nl141900562080869.569.9 nl162671942856146.9514.2

46 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 46/49 Computational results Instan ce Best unmirrored Best mirrored gap (%) Time to best (s) circ124204568.68.5 circ146827144.71.1 circ1697610042.9115.3 circ1814201364-3.9284.2 circ2019081882-1.4578.3 nl121122981206557.424.0 nl141900562080869.569.9 nl162671942856146.9514.2

47 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 47/49 Computational results Instan ce Best unmirrored Best mirrored gap (%) Time to best (s) circ124204568.68.5 circ146827144.71.1 circ1697610042.9115.3 circ181364 0.0284.2 circ201882 0.0578.3 nl121122981206557.424.0 nl141900562080869.569.9 nl162671942856146.9514.2

48 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 48/49 New heuristic improved by 3.9% and 1.4% the best known solutions for the corresponding less constrained unmirrored instances circ18 and circ20. Computation times are smaller than computation time of other heuristics, e.g. for instance MLB14: –Anagnostopoulos et al. (2003): approximately five days of computation time –GRASP + ILS: 10 minutes Computational results

49 Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 49/49 Constructive heuristic is very fast and effective. GRASP+ILS heuristic found very good solutions: –Very fast (10 minutes). –Solutions found for some instances are even better than those available for the corresponding less constrained not necessarily mirrored instances. –Optimal solutions for a new class of instances for n = 4, 6, 8, 10,12, and 16 (Urrutia & Ribeiro, “Minimizing travels by maximizing breaks in round robin tournament schedules”, 2004) Effectiveness of the ejection chains. Concluding Remarks

Download ppt "Heuristics for the MTTPROADEF, February 2005 1/49 Heuristics for the Mirrored Traveling Tournament Problem Celso C. RIBEIRO Sebastián URRUTIA."

Similar presentations

Leena Suhl University of Paderborn, Germany

Leena Suhl University of Paderborn, Germany
Michele Samorani Manuel Laguna. PROBLEM : In meta-heuristic methods that are based on neighborhood search, whenever a local optimum is encountered, the.

Michele Samorani Manuel Laguna. PROBLEM : In meta-heuristic methods that are based on neighborhood search, whenever a local optimum is encountered, the.
Neural and Evolutionary Computing - Lecture 4 1 Random Search Algorithms. Simulated Annealing Motivation Simple Random Search Algorithms Simulated Annealing.

Neural and Evolutionary Computing - Lecture 4 1 Random Search Algorithms. Simulated Annealing Motivation Simple Random Search Algorithms Simulated Annealing.
Novembro 2003 Tabu search heuristic for partition coloring1/29 XXXV SBPO XXXV SBPO Natal, 4-7 de novembro de 2003 A Tabu Search Heuristic for Partition.

Novembro 2003 Tabu search heuristic for partition coloring1/29 XXXV SBPO XXXV SBPO Natal, 4-7 de novembro de 2003 A Tabu Search Heuristic for Partition.
1 EE5900 Advanced Embedded System For Smart Infrastructure Static Scheduling.

1 EE5900 Advanced Embedded System For Smart Infrastructure Static Scheduling.
Techniques for Dealing with Hard Problems Backtrack: –Systematically enumerates all potential solutions by continually trying to extend a partial solution.

Techniques for Dealing with Hard Problems Backtrack: –Systematically enumerates all potential solutions by continually trying to extend a partial solution.
Michael Trick Tepper School, Carnegie Mellon Combinatorial Benders’ Cuts for Sports Scheduling Optimization.

Michael Trick Tepper School, Carnegie Mellon Combinatorial Benders’ Cuts for Sports Scheduling Optimization.
December 2003 Traveling tournament problem1/88 Heuristics for the Traveling Tournament Problem: Scheduling the Brazilian Soccer Championship Celso C. RIBEIRO.

December 2003 Traveling tournament problem1/88 Heuristics for the Traveling Tournament Problem: Scheduling the Brazilian Soccer Championship Celso C. RIBEIRO.
Online Social Networks and Media. Graph partitioning The general problem – Input: a graph G=(V,E) edge (u,v) denotes similarity between u and v weighted.

Online Social Networks and Media. Graph partitioning The general problem – Input: a graph G=(V,E) edge (u,v) denotes similarity between u and v weighted.
1 Constraint-based Round Robin Tournament Planning Martin Henz National University of Singapore.

1 Constraint-based Round Robin Tournament Planning Martin Henz National University of Singapore.
Sports Scheduling An Assessment of Various Approaches to Solving the n-Round Robin Tournament Noren De La Rosa Mallory Ratajewski.

Sports Scheduling An Assessment of Various Approaches to Solving the n-Round Robin Tournament Noren De La Rosa Mallory Ratajewski.
Augoust 2004 1/47 Heuristics for the Mirrored Traveling Tournament Problem Celso C. RIBEIRO Sebastián URRUTIA.

Augoust /47 Heuristics for the Mirrored Traveling Tournament Problem Celso C. RIBEIRO Sebastián URRUTIA.
May 2004 Minimizing travels by maximizing breaks1/32 Minimizing Travels by Maximizing Breaks in Round Robin Tournament Schedules Celso RIBEIRO UFF and.

May 2004 Minimizing travels by maximizing breaks1/32 Minimizing Travels by Maximizing Breaks in Round Robin Tournament Schedules Celso RIBEIRO UFF and.
Computability and Complexity 23-1 Computability and Complexity Andrei Bulatov Search and Optimization.

Computability and Complexity 23-1 Computability and Complexity Andrei Bulatov Search and Optimization.
November 2002 Scene recognition by inexact graph matching1/39 ALIO/EURO Workshop Scene recognition by inexact graph matching Celso C. Ribeiro * Claudia.

November 2002 Scene recognition by inexact graph matching1/39 ALIO/EURO Workshop Scene recognition by inexact graph matching Celso C. Ribeiro * Claudia.
A heuristic for a real-life car sequencing problem with multiple requirements Daniel Aloise 1 Thiago Noronha 1 Celso Ribeiro 1,2 Caroline Rocha 2 Sebastián.

A heuristic for a real-life car sequencing problem with multiple requirements Daniel Aloise 1 Thiago Noronha 1 Celso Ribeiro 1,2 Caroline Rocha 2 Sebastián.
1 Greedy Algorithms. 2 2 A short list of categories Algorithm types we will consider include: Simple recursive algorithms Backtracking algorithms Divide.

1 Greedy Algorithms. 2 2 A short list of categories Algorithm types we will consider include: Simple recursive algorithms Backtracking algorithms Divide.
1 Optimization problems such as MAXSAT, MIN NODE COVER, MAX INDEPENDENT SET, MAX CLIQUE, MIN SET COVER, TSP, KNAPSACK, BINPACKING do not have a polynomial.

1 Optimization problems such as MAXSAT, MIN NODE COVER, MAX INDEPENDENT SET, MAX CLIQUE, MIN SET COVER, TSP, KNAPSACK, BINPACKING do not have a polynomial.
1 Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) Given n £ n positive distance matrix (d ij ) find permutation  on {0,1,2,..,n-1} minimizing  i=0 n-1 d  (i),  (i+1.

1 Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) Given n £ n positive distance matrix (d ij ) find permutation  on {0,1,2,..,n-1} minimizing  i=0 n-1 d  (i),  (i+1.
February 2002Parallel GRASP for the 2-path network design problem Slide 1/25 (ROADEF) 4 èmes Journées de la ROADEF Paris, February 20-22, 2002 A Parallel.

February 2002Parallel GRASP for the 2-path network design problem Slide 1/25 (ROADEF) 4 èmes Journées de la ROADEF Paris, February 20-22, 2002 A Parallel.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google