Shojaeefard et al 2021a - Revision history

Rimni at 14:39, 8 March 2022

2022-03-08T14:39:44Z

Rimni: /* 5. Results and discussion */

2022-03-08T14:30:47Z

‎5. Results and discussion

Rimni: /* 5. Results and discussion */

2022-03-08T14:25:59Z

‎5. Results and discussion

Show changes

Rimni: /* 5. Results and discussion */

2022-03-08T14:17:27Z

‎5. Results and discussion

Rimni at 14:09, 8 March 2022

2022-03-08T14:09:33Z

Rimni: /* 5. Results and discussion */

2022-03-08T13:02:10Z

‎5. Results and discussion

Rimni: /* 5. Results and discussion */

2022-03-07T15:48:02Z

‎5. Results and discussion

Rimni: /* 2. Literature review */

2022-03-07T15:21:22Z

‎2. Literature review

Rimni at 15:20, 7 March 2022

2022-03-07T15:20:46Z

Show changes

Rimni at 15:16, 7 March 2022

2022-03-07T15:16:49Z

Show changes

@@ Line 445: / Line 445: @@
 The suggested GA code is written in MATLAB version (R2018b). The performance of the proposed method has been tested in 6 benchmark samples. These cases have been suggested by Dr. Cordeu and are considered for comparison in this article. Also, recognizing supply and service from the nearest depot has added to the problem with compared to other publications.
-<div class="center" style="font-size: 75%;">'''Table 2'''. The courdeu dataset</div>
+<div class="center" style="font-size: 75%;">'''Table 2'''. The Courdeu [3] dataset</div>
 <div id='tab-2'></div>
@@ Line 568: / Line 568: @@
-<div class="center" style="font-size: 75%;">'''Table 4'''. Comparing distance proposed method with Rabbouch [16]</div>
+<div class="center" style="font-size: 75%;">'''Table 4'''. Comparing distance proposed method with Rabbouch B. [16]</div>
 <div id='tab-4'></div>
@@ Line 606: / Line 606: @@
 Comparing the proposed method with the data of recent publications, the path is taken in this method is significantly reduced compared to other methods. In 2019, Robocha introduced an innovative method that is compared in [[#tab-5|Table 5]] with the outputs of the proposed method. In this table, the route traveled by vehicles has been significantly reduced, but the program time has also been increased to some extent. The reason for this is to perform dual and hierarchical clustering for each sample to determine the distance changes, we presented [[#tab-6|Table 6]]. This table specifies the percentage of route reduction and how effective it can be in routing.
-<div class="center" style="font-size: 75%;">'''Table 5'''. Comparing proposed method with Robucha (2019)</div>
+<div class="center" style="font-size: 75%;">'''Table 5'''. Comparing proposed method with Rabbouch B. [16]</div>
 <div id='tab-1'></div>
@@ Line 653: / Line 653: @@
 As it was announced, the maximum reduction of the path traveled by the proposed method is about 17.3% and the minimum is 7.09% compared to the recent method, while the amount of calculation time has also increased and this increase from the minimum of 0.83% It is up to a maximum of 48%, but considering that the difference in the maximum amount of CPU time  is only 49 seconds compared to the recent method, this time seems reasonable compared to the result obtained. [[#tab-6|Table 6]] shows the values obtained in the MDVRPTW State of Art problem with the answers obtained with the proposed method. The values obtained from this method are based on the best results obtained in each sample of Cordio. In this table, by comparing the lengths of the obtained paths, we conclude that the proposed method has given more appropriate answers to the MDVRPTW problem.
-<div class="center" style="font-size: 75%;">'''Table 6'''. Compering proposed method with State of Art</div>
+<div class="center" style="font-size: 75%;">'''Table 6'''. Comparing proposed method with State of Art</div>
 <div id='tab-6'></div>

@@ Line 521: / Line 521: @@
 {| class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 0.1em auto;border-collapse: collapse;font-size:85%;width:auto;"
 |-style="text-align:center"
-!  Item !! Pr01 !! Pr02 !! Pr03 !! Pr04 !! Pr07 !! Pr11 !! 17
+! style="text-align: left;vertical-align: top;"| Item !! Pr01 !! Pr02 !! Pr03 !! Pr04 !! Pr07 !! Pr11 !! 17
 |-
 |  style="text-align: left;vertical-align: top;"|Route
@@ Line 611: / Line 611: @@
 {| class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 0.1em auto;border-collapse: collapse;font-size:85%;width:auto;"
 |-style="text-align:center"
-! !! Pr01 !! Pr02 !! Pr03 !! Pr04 !! Pr07 !! Pr11 !! Pr17
+! style="text-align: left;vertical-align: top;"|Item !! Pr01 !! Pr02 !! Pr03 !! Pr04 !! Pr07 !! Pr11 !! Pr17
 |-
 |  style="text-align: left;vertical-align: top;"|Proposed method distance
@@ Line 695: / Line 695: @@
 |  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|1.8
 |  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|5.8
 |}

@@ Line 533: / Line 533: @@
 |-
 |  style="text-align: left;vertical-align: top;"|Distance
-|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|973.99
+|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|1073.99
 |  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|1690.6
 |  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|2132
@@ Line 573: / Line 573: @@
 {| class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 0.1em auto;border-collapse: collapse;font-size:85%;width:auto;"
 |-style="text-align:center"
-! Pr01 !! Pr02 !! Pr03 !! Pr04 !! Pr07 !! Pr11 !! Pr17
+! !! Pr01 !! Pr02 !! Pr03 !! Pr04 !! Pr07 !! Pr11 !! Pr17
 |-
 |  style="text-align: left;vertical-align: top;"|Proposed method distance
@@ Line 586: / Line 586: @@
 |  style="text-align: left;vertical-align: top;"|Rabbouch B. [16]
 |  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|1112.83
-|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|1824.49
+|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|1762.34
 |  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|2481.32
-|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|3012.76
+|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|3005.67
 |  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|1461.1
 |  style=";text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|1100.97
@@ Line 594: / Line 594: @@
 |-
 |  style="text-align: left;vertical-align: top;"|Percentage changes
-|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|17.3%
+|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|13.5%
-|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|10.8%
+|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|4.1%
 |  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|15.8%
-|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|11.06%
+|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|15.2%
-|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|16.38%
-|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|7.09%
 |  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|14.25%
 |}

@@ Line 575: / Line 575: @@
 ! Pr01 !! Pr02 !! Pr03 !! Pr04 !! Pr07 !! Pr11 !! Pr17
 |-
 |  style="text-align: left;vertical-align: top;"|Proposed method distance
 |-
-|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|1355.48
+|  style="text-align: left;vertical-align: top;"|Rabbouch B. [16]
-|  style=";text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|1100.97
-|  colspan='2'  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|1461.1
-|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|3012.76
-|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|2481.32
-|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|1824.49
 |  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|1112.83
-|  style="text-align: left;vertical-align: top;"|R. Robocha (2019) distance
+|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|1824.49
 |-
 |  style="text-align: left;vertical-align: top;"|Percentage changes
 |}

@@ Line 573: / Line 573: @@
 {| class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 0.1em auto;border-collapse: collapse;font-size:85%;width:auto;"
 |-style="text-align:center"
-! Pr17 !! Pr11 !! Pr07 !! Pr04 !! Pr03 !! colspan='2'  style="text-align: center;"| Pr02 !! Pr01
+! Pr01 !! Pr02 !! Pr03 !! Pr04 !! Pr07 !! Pr11 !! Pr17
 |-
 |  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|1155.48
 |  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|933.27

@@ Line 521: / Line 521: @@
 {| class="wikitable" style="margin: 1em auto 0.1em auto;border-collapse: collapse;font-size:85%;width:auto;"
 |-style="text-align:center"
-!Pr17 !! Pr11 !! Pr07 !! Pr04 !! Pr03 !! Pr02 !! Pr01 !! colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" | Item
+!  Item !! Pr01 !! Pr02 !! Pr03 !! Pr04 !! Pr07 !! Pr11 !! 17
 |-
 |  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|6
 |  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|12
 |  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|6
 |-
 |  style="text-align: left;vertical-align: top;"|Distance
 |-
-|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|118
+|  style="text-align: left;vertical-align: top;"|CPU Time(s)
-|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|99
-|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|92
-|  colspan='2'  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|238
-|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|189
-|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|149
 |  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|83
-|  style="text-align: left;vertical-align: top;"|CPU
+|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;"|149
 |}
@@ Line 568: / Line 568: @@
-<div class="center" style="font-size: 75%;">'''Table 4'''. Comparing distance proposed method with Robucha (2019)</div>
+<div class="center" style="font-size: 75%;">'''Table 4'''. Comparing distance proposed method with Rabbouch [16]</div>
 <div id='tab-4'></div>

@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 |  style="text-align: left;vertical-align: top;"|A simulated annealing-based approach for a real case study of vehicle routing problem with a heterogeneous fleet and time windows
 |  style="text-align: left;"|Hybrid TSP and simulated annealing
-|  style="text-align: center;"|inderscience
+|  style="text-align: center;"|Inderscience
 |  style="text-align: center;"|Bernal J. (2021)  [20]
 |-