From b1b2f633591451341771ffd4d36d004887291265 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: oblonski Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 18:12:24 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] prepare release - update whats_new --- WHATS_NEW.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/WHATS_NEW.md b/WHATS_NEW.md index 8866352c..e2596b57 100644 --- a/WHATS_NEW.md +++ b/WHATS_NEW.md @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ jsprit, which was basically specific configurations of the schrimpf-algorithm wa ![schrimpf_simpleCluster](https://github.com/jsprit/misc-rep/raw/master/wiki-images/vrp_clustered_schrimpf_simpleCluster.png) -The algorithm results in what we expect by looking at the problem. Look at what happened when we add similar job-clusters +The algorithm results in what we would expect by looking at the problem. Look at what happened when we add similar job-clusters between depot and the existing clusters. ![schrimpf_moreClusters](https://github.com/jsprit/misc-rep/raw/master/wiki-images/vrp_clustered_schrimpf_moreClusters.png) @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ This is definitely not the solution, one would intuitively expect when looking a Therefore, we put much effort into analysing this and designing a new algorithm (which is still based on the schrimpf principles). We implemented two new ruin strategies: worst and cluster ruin, and we added -some randomness to the ruin and recreation strategies. Moreover, the new algorithm makes use of regretInsertion by default. +some thouroughly designed randomness to these and the existing strategies. Moreover, the new algorithm makes use of regretInsertion by default. On all benchmarking instances, our new algorithm performs better (or at least as good as) than the previous algorithms in terms of solution quality. However, it comes with higher computational costs. Look at how the new algorithm solves the above problem