Ferreira Steiner 2021a - Revision history

Rimni at 13:29, 14 January 2022

2022-01-14T13:29:41Z

Rimni at 13:29, 14 January 2022

2022-01-14T13:29:18Z

Rimni at 13:23, 14 January 2022

2022-01-14T13:23:48Z

Show changes

Rimni at 12:31, 14 January 2022

2022-01-14T12:31:32Z

Rimni at 12:29, 14 January 2022

2022-01-14T12:29:28Z

Rimni: /* 5.3 Instances from the literature */

2022-01-14T12:28:31Z

‎5.3 Instances from the literature

Rimni at 12:25, 14 January 2022

2022-01-14T12:25:08Z

Rimni: /* 5.2 Meeting the requirements of the case study */

2022-01-14T12:19:13Z

‎5.2 Meeting the requirements of the case study

Rimni at 12:12, 14 January 2022

2022-01-14T12:12:51Z

Rimni at 12:12, 14 January 2022

2022-01-14T12:12:19Z

@@ Line 192: / Line 192: @@
 Therefore, <math>U(x) = 0</math> can be configured for the lowest utility value and <math>U(x) = 1</math> for the highest utility value. All other utilities must lie within this interval. This procedure facilitates the definition of the relative utility of all the results from the worst to the best. Finally, when using a UF in a decision analysis process, it must be adapted to the preferences and values of the DM.
-====3.8 Environmental considerations====
+===3.8 Environmental considerations===
 Here, the environmental considerations related to GHG emissions are addressed. According to Carvalho [40], it is possible to observe the average CO<math>_2</math> emissions from urban transport through the different modes of transport, as shown in [[#tab-1|Table 1]].

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:29, 14 January 2022
Line 186:		Line 186:


−	====3.7 Utility theory====	+	===3.7 Utility theory===

	According to Poterba and Rotemberg [39], the fundamental property of Utility Theory is that the Monetary Utility Function (UF) of a Decision Maker (DM) is that it is indifferent between two alternatives if they yield the same expected utility.		According to Poterba and Rotemberg [39], the fundamental property of Utility Theory is that the Monetary Utility Function (UF) of a Decision Maker (DM) is that it is indifferent between two alternatives if they yield the same expected utility.

@@ Line 692: / Line 692: @@
 {| class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 0.1em auto;border-collapse: collapse;font-size:85%;width:auto;"
 |-style="text-align:center"
-! !! Criterion !! NSGA-II !! MOPSO !! CWNSGA-II !! CWTSNSGA-II
+! colspan="2"| Criterion !! NSGA-II !! MOPSO !! CWNSGA-II !! CWTSNSGA-II
 |-style="text-align:center"
 |  rowspan='2' | Hypervolume

@@ Line 692: / Line 692: @@
 {| class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 0.1em auto;border-collapse: collapse;font-size:85%;width:auto;"
 |-style="text-align:center"
-! Criterion !! NSGA-II !! MOPSO !! CWNSGA-II !! CWTSNSGA-II
+! !! Criterion !! NSGA-II !! MOPSO !! CWNSGA-II !! CWTSNSGA-II
 |-style="text-align:center"
 |  rowspan='2' | Hypervolume

@@ Line 655: / Line 655: @@
 {| class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 0.1em auto;border-collapse: collapse;font-size:85%;width:auto;"
 |-style="text-align:center"
-!  Parameter !!Level
+!  style="text-align: left;"| Parameter !!Level
 |-style="text-align:center"
-|  Iterations
+|  style="text-align: left;"| terations
 |  100
 |-style="text-align:center"

@@ Line 660: / Line 660: @@
 |  100
 |-style="text-align:center"
-|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|Population/Particle
+|  style="text-align: left;vertical-align: top;"|Population/Particle
 |  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|60
 |-style="text-align:center"
-|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|Crossover
+|  style="text-align: left;vertical-align: top;"|Crossover
 |  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|0.7
 |-style="text-align:center"
-|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|Mutation
+|  style="text-align: left;vertical-align: top;"|Mutation
 |  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|0.3
 |-style="text-align:center"
-|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|C<math>_1</math> and C<math>_2</math>
+|  style="text-align: left;vertical-align: top;"|C<math>_1</math> and C<math>_2</math>
 |  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|1
 |}
@@ Line 676: / Line 676: @@
 The OFs that were used are the same as in the case study, i.e., “minimization of CO<math>_2</math> emissions” and “absolute minimization of the demands of each route in relation to the average demand”. To evaluate the instances, three simulations were performed and the response with the greatest hypervolume was selected (presented in Section 3.4.1).
-The results of the tests with the instances from the literature are synthesized in Figure 12. Table 7 shows the mean and standard deviation of the analyzed data. The CWNSGA-II and CWTSNSGA-II presented better results than the NSGA-II and MOPSO.
+The results of the tests with the instances from the literature are synthesized in [[#img-12|Figure 12]]. [[#tab-7|Table 7]] shows the mean and standard deviation of the analyzed data. The CWNSGA-II and CWTSNSGA-II presented better results than the NSGA-II and MOPSO.
-<div class="center" style="width: auto; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">
+<div id='img-12'></div>
-  [[Image:Draft_Ferreira_303992004-image12.jpeg|534px]] </div>
+{| style="text-align: center; border: 1px solid #BBB; margin: 1em auto; width: auto;max-width: auto;"
-<div class="center" style="width: auto; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">
+<div class="center" style="font-size: 75%;">'''Table 7'''. Mean and Standard Deviation of the data analyzed in the instances from the literature</div>
-Table 7: Mean and Standard Deviation of the data analyzed in the instances from the literature.</div>
-{| style="width: 100%;margin: 1em auto 0.1em auto;border-collapse: collapse;"
+<div id='tab-7'></div>
-|-
+{| class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 0.1em auto;border-collapse: collapse;font-size:85%;width:auto;"
-|  colspan='2'  style="border-top: 1pt solid black;border-bottom: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|Criterion
+|-style="text-align:center"
-|  style="border-top: 1pt solid black;border-bottom: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|NSGA-II
+! Criterion !! NSGA-II !! MOPSO !! CWNSGA-II !! CWTSNSGA-II
-|  style="border-top: 1pt solid black;border-bottom: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|MOPSO
+|-style="text-align:center"
-|  style="border-top: 1pt solid black;border-bottom: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|CWNSGA-II
+|  rowspan='2' | Hypervolume
-|  style="border-top: 1pt solid black;border-bottom: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|CWTSNSGA-II
+|  Mean
-|-
+|  5,061.9
-|  rowspan='2' style="border-top: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|Hypervolume
+|  1,376.6
-|  style="border-top: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|Mean
+|  9,299.2
-|  style="border-top: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|5,061.9
+|  9,485.1
-|  style="border-top: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|1,376.6
+|-style="text-align:center"
-|  style="border-top: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|9,299.2
+|  S.D.
-|  style="border-top: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|9,485.1
+|  3,481.9
-|-
+|  1,344.1
-|  style="border-bottom: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|S.D.
+|  7,088.6
-|  style="border-bottom: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|3,481.9
+|  7,098.9
-|  style="border-bottom: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|1,344.1
-|  style="border-bottom: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|7,088.6
-|  style="border-bottom: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|7,098.9
 |}

@@ Line 542: / Line 542: @@
 {| class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 0.1em auto;border-collapse: collapse;font-size:85%;width:auto;"
 |-style="text-align:center"
-! Solution (route)!! Emissions in Kilograms [kg] of CO<math>_2</math>/km !! Distance traveled [km] !! Fuel consumption [l] !! Journey time [min] !!No. of vehicles !! Difference in demand
+! style="vertical-align: top;"| Solution (route)!! Emissions in Kilograms [kg]<br> of CO<math>_2</math>/km !! Distance traveled <br>[km] !! Fuel consumption <br>[l] !! Journey time <br>[min] !!style="vertical-align: top;"|No. of vehicles !! style="vertical-align: top;"|Difference in demand
 |-style="text-align:center"
 |  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|Current

@@ Line 529: / Line 529: @@
 {| style="text-align: center; border: 1px solid #BBB; margin: 1em auto; width: auto;max-width: auto;"
 |-
-|style="padding:10px;"| [[File:Review_276441878918_6197_fig 10_v1.jpg]]
+|style="padding:10px;"| [[File:Review_276441878918_6197_fig 10_v1.jpg|500px]]
 |- style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;"
 | colspan="1" style="padding:10px;"| '''Figure 10'''. Analysis of the Pareto Fronts obtained by the CWNSGA-II for the ideal scenario