<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

Evolutionary Algorithm for the Time-Dependent
Orienteering Problem

Krzysztof Ostrowski

► To cite this version:

Krzysztof Ostrowski. Evolutionary Algorithm for the Time-Dependent Orienteering Problem. 16th IFIP International Conference on Computer Information Systems and Industrial Management (CISIM), Jun 2017, Bialystok, Poland. pp.50-62, 10.1007/978-3-319-59105-6_5. hal-01656243

HAL Id: hal-01656243

https://inria.hal.science/hal-01656243

Submitted on 5 Dec 2017

**HAL** is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Evolutionary algorithm for the Time-Dependent Orienteering Problem

Krzysztof Ostrowski

Faculty of Computer Science, Bialystok University of Technology, Bialystok, Poland
k.ostrowski@pb.edu.pl

**Abstract.** The Time-Dependent Orienteering Problem (TDOP) is a generalization of the Orienteering Problem where graph weights vary with time. It has many real life applications particularly associated with transport networks, in which travel time between two points depends on the moment of start. The paper presents an evolutionary algorithm with embedded local search operators and heuristic crossover, which solves TDOP. The algorithm was tested on TDOP benchmark instances and in most cases achieved optimal or near optimal results clearly outperforming other published methods.

**Keywords:** Time-Dependent Orienteering Problem, evolutionary algorithm, metaheuristic, local search operators

## 1 Introduction

The Orienteering Problem (OP) can be formulated on a graph in which each vertex has assigned a profit and each edge has a cost. The goal of the OP is to find a path between given points limited by total cost which maximizes total profit of visited vertices. The OP has many practical applications including tourist trip planning [17], transport logistics and others. For example in tourist trip planning each attraction (point of interest - POI) has some profit assigned. In this case the purpose is to find as attractive trip as possible with limited duration. It can be solved by OP algorithms.

In this paper the Time-Dependent Orienteering Problem (TDOP) [15] is tackled. TDOP is a generalization of OP in which graph weights (identified with travel times) vary with time. In practical situations, usually travel time between two places depends on the moment of travel start. Examples of time-dependent networks are public transport networks (travel times determined by timetables) as well as other transport networks (travel times determined by time of a day and traffic). Determining most profitable paths in such networks (i.e. most attractive trips for tourists) comes down to solving TDOP.

To solve the TDOP author proposed an evolutionary algorithm with local search methods embedded. It was based on the algorithm which author developed for classic OP obtaining solutions close to optimal for benchmarks up to a few hundred vertices [27]. Some modifications were applied to the algorithm: allowance of infeasible solutions (too long paths) in a population and adaptation
of operators to time dependency.

The article is organized as follows. Literature review is presented in section 2.
Detailed mathematical problem definition is given in section 3. In section 4 there
is a description of proposed evolutionary algorithm. Section 5 contains compu-
tational results of the algorithm and comparisons with other metaheuristics.
Finally, in section 6 conclusion and further research are included.

## 2 Literature review

The Orienteering Problem was introduced by Tsiligirides [1]. The OP (and its generalizations) is an NP-hard optimization problem [2] and exact algorithms for OP can be very time-consuming for larger graphs. The exact algorithms usually applied for the OP are the branch-and-cut methods [7] [5]. However, because of its computational difficulty, most OP papers are devoted to heuristics and metaheuristics. Various approaches were based i.a. on greedy and randomized construction of solutions [1] [2] [20], local search methods [4] [12], tabu search [6], ant-colony optimization [13] and genetic algorithms [8]. Author's previous OP research concentrated on development of evolutionary algorithms with local search operators, which proved successful on benchmark instances [28][27][25][21].

The Time-Dependent Orienteering Problem (TDOP) is relatively new and most of papers regarding TDOP were published in current decade. Most of them emphasize practical application of TDOP especially in transport networks. Fomin et al. [9] presented first approach to the problem - they proposed (2 + $\epsilon$)-approximation algorithm for TDOP. The problem version tackled in the article was simplified because each node had the same profit (equal to 1). LI [15] developed an exact method basing on dynamic programming and solved small instances of TDOP. He used discretized time and there were 1440 time states (number of minutes in a day). It was the first article about classic TDOP (nodes profits can be arbitrary).

The TDOP solutions can be practically used in networks of tourist attractions connected by means of public transport. A few papers concentrated on TDOP application in such networks. In paper [18] first such an application was presented - algorithm was tested on POI and public transport network of Tehran. The authors used a different name to the problem and routes utility was computed in a different way to classic OP but the problem was closely related to TDOP.

Garcia et al [19] for the first time applied classic TDOP version in a public transport network - experiments were conducted on POI and public transport network of San Sebastian. Their solution also took into account time-windows and multiple paths (Time-Dependent Team Orienteering Problem with Time Windows). In order to solve the problem they used Iterated Local Search method (ILS). However, they used some simplifications: computations performed on average daily travel time (first approach) and assumption of periodic public transport timetables (second approach).

Recently one of the first approaches which uses real time-dependent weights
in public transport network was presented [26]. Experiments were conducted on POI and public transport network of Athens. Authors proposed 20 topologies and 100 tourist preferences combining into 2000 different test cases. Authors introduced two fast heuristics (TDCSCR and TDSICSCR), which based on it-erated local search and vertex clustering, and made comparisons with ILS.

Another solution of TDOP tested on real travel times of POI and public transport network (city of Bialystok) was proposed by the author of this paper [24]. The algorithm based on local search procedures and was tested in three vari-ants which processed network weights in different ways. Time-dependent variant performed computation on real travel times, mean variant operated on static network of daily averaged travel times (like in approaches described above) and hybrid variant used information from both approaches.

Verbeeck at al [22] developed new benchmark instances for TDOP. These networks model street traffic. The authors proposed ant-colony approach, tested it on mentioned benchmarks and compared with optimal solutions (obtained by them). The tested metaheuristic achieved high quality results in short execu-tion time. Gunawan et al [23] modified Verbeeck's benchmarks (discretization of time) and tested a few approaches: greedy construction, iterated local search (ILS), adaptive ILS and variable neighborhood descent. The best solutions were generated by adaptive ILS metaheuristic.

## 3 Definition of the Time-Dependent Orienteering Problem

Let $G = (V, E)$ be a directed, weighted graph. In this paper each weight between vertices $i$ and $j$ ($i, j \in V$) is identified with travel time between these vertices and is a function $w_{ij}(t)$ dependent on the moment of travel start $t$. Each vertex $i$ has a nonnegative profit $p_i$ and a nonnegative visit time $\tau_i$. Given the time-dependent graph, moment of start $t_0$, time limit $T_{max}$, start and end vertices ($s$ and $e$) the purpose of TDOP is to find a path from $s$ to $e$ starting at time $t_0$ which maximizes total profit of visited vertices and its total cost (travel time) does not exceed $T_{max}$. TDOP can be formulated as Mixed Integer Programming problem. Let $x_{ij}$ is 1 iff a path contains direct travel from $i$ to $j$ and 0 otherwise. Let $y_i$ is 1 iff a path contains vertex $i$ and 0 otherwise. Let $t_i$ be a time of arrival at vertex $i$ - this function is defined only for vertices contained in a path. The purpose of TDOP is to maximize formula_1 without violating constraints given by formulas_2-8. Formula_2 limits total time budget. Formula_3 indicates that the path starts in $s$ and ends in $e$. Constraint_4 means that each vertex can be visited only once while formula_5 is a relation between variables $x$ and $y$. Formulas_6 and 7 are used to compute arrival times at visited vertices. Constraint_8 guarantees that there are no sub cycles.
$$ \max \sum_{i \in V} (p_i \cdot y_i) \qquad (1) \qquad \forall_{i \in V} (y_i = \max(\sum_{j \in V} x_{ij}, \sum_{j \in V} x_{ji})) \qquad (5) $$

$$ t_e + \tau_e - t_0 \le T_{max} \qquad (2) \qquad t_s = t_0 \qquad (6) $$

$$ \sum_{j \in V} x_{sj} = \sum_{i \in V} x_{ie} = 1 \qquad (3) \qquad \forall_{i \in V, j \in V} (x_{ij} = 1 \Rightarrow t_j = t_i + \tau_i + w_{ij}(t_i + \tau_i)) $$

$$ \forall_{k \in V \setminus \{s,e\}} (\sum_{i \in V} x_{ik} = \sum_{j \in V} x_{kj} \le 1) \quad (4) \qquad \forall_{S \subset V} (\sum_{i \in S} y_i < \sum_{i \in V} y_i \Rightarrow \sum_{i,j \in S} x_{ij} < \sum_{i \in S} y_i) \quad (8) $$

# 4 Proposed algorithm description

To solve the TDOP author proposed an evolutionary algorithm with local search methods embedded (during mutation), disturb operator, 2-point crossover and deterministic crowding as selection mechanism. Operators have two forms (random and heuristic) - their frequency and specificity are controlled by algorithm parameters. Infeasible solutions (too long paths) can be included in a population as well and they are penalized by fitness function. A path representation is used in the proposed algorithm - each gene in a chromosome is associated with visited vertex in a corresponding path. After random initialization of paths, procedures of crossover, selection, mutation and disturbance and applied repeatedly. Evolution terminates after $N_g$ generations or earlier if there is no improvement in the last $C_g$ generations. The result is the best feasible path obtained during algorithm run.

## 4.1 Evaluation

Let $S$ be a path with total profit $p_S$ and total cost (travel time) $c_S$. Fitness function of a feasible path (not exceeding $T_{max}$) is equal to its profit. If path $S$ is too long its fitness is: fitness($S$) = $p_S \cdot (T_{max}/c_S)^k$. Fitness function decreases as solution is farther from feasibility boarder $T_{max}$. Parameter $k$ is associated with penalty severity: larger values mean stronger penalties. Fitness function is adaptive: at the beginning $k = 1$ and every 10 generations there is a check - if more than $\alpha$ percent of individuals are infeasible then $k$ is increased by 0.1.

## 4.2 Initialization

At the beginning initial population of $P_{size}$ random paths is generated. Construction of each solution begins with adding start vertex $s$. Afterwards, random vertices are iteratively added at the end of the path as long as further insertions are possible without violating $T_{max}$ constraint (including cost of traveling back to end vertex).
## 4.3 Crossover

During crossover $P_{size} \cdot c_p$ different pairs of parents are randomly selected from the population ($c_p$ - crossover probability) and each pair undergoes crossover procedure. A specialized 2-point crossover operator was used. At the beginning an ordered set $S$ of common vertices for both parents is determined. Vertices order in the set is the same as in first parent. Next, chromosome fragments between two successive vertices in $S$ are exchanged and two offspring are created. If any duplicates appear in offspring individuals outside of exchanged fragments they are immediately removed. Crossover can be performed in two ways depending on how exchanged fragments are chosen. Random crossover variant chooses crossing points randomly while heuristic crossover maximizes fitness function of the fitter offspring (all exchange options are checked). Created offspring can exceed $T_{max}$ limit. The probability of using heuristic crossover is indicated by parameter $c_h$ while the probability of using random version is $1 - c_h$. In Figure 1 there is an example of crossover.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1: Example of 2-point crossover. Given two parents which have 4 common vertices (16, 4, 9, 1) there are three possible fragment exchanges between successive points. Variant I shows children created by fragments exchange between vertices 16 and 4, variant II is created by segments exchange between points 4 and 9 while variant III shows offspring individuals created by exchange of fragments between vertices 9 and 1.</figcaption></figure>

## 4.4 Selection

In the algorithm no parent selection is used. Instead, survival selection is applied in the form of deterministic crowding [3]. After crossover procedure ends each offspring competes with one of its parents and the fitter individual is chosen to the next generation. To preserve population diversity competition is performed between more similar child-parent pairs. Pair arrangement is determined by distance measure. In this problem two distance measures are applied: edit distance (operations insert and delete) and cardinality of symmetric difference of vertex
sets. The second is computed initially - if it suggests that child-parent pairs
should be swapped then more complex procedure of edit distance is calculated.

4.5 Mutation

During mutation phase $P_{size} \cdot m_{p}$ individuals are randomly selected from the population ($m_{p}$ is mutation probability). First, each chosen individual undergoes 2-opt procedure. This procedure tries to replace two non-adjacent edges in a path by two other edges in order to shorten the path as much as possible. Given a path ($v_{1}, v_{2}, ..., v_{i}, v_{i+1}, ..., v_{j}, v_{j+1}, ..., v_{k}$) 2-opt procedure replaces edges ($v_{i}, v_{i+1}$) and ($v_{j}, v_{j+1}$) by edges ($v_{i}, v_{j}$) and ($v_{i+1}, v_{j+1}$) and reverses path fragment between $v_{i+1}$ and $v_{j}$. The resulting path is: ($v_{1}, v_{2}, ..., v_{i}, v_{j}, v_{j-1}, ..., v_{i+1}, v_{j+1}, v_{j+2}, ..., v_{k}$).

Afterwards one vertex insertion or one vertex deletion is carried out. Probabilities of insertion and deletion are the same (0.5). Both insertion and deletion can be either random or heuristic (local search). Heuristic insertion from all possible non-included vertices (and all insertion places) chooses the option that maximizes ratio of vertex profit to path travel time increase. Random insertion chooses new vertex randomly but insertion place is chosen to minimize travel time increase. Heuristic deletion chooses the vertex that minimizes ratio of vertex profit to path travel time decrease. During mutation $T_{max}$ limit can be exceeded. The ratio between local search and randomness is determined by parameter $m_{h}$ (analogically to $c_{h}$ in crossover phase).

4.6 Disturb

Disturb procedure can be perceived as a different type of mutation which causes bigger changes in routes. The operator chooses $P_{size} \cdot d_{p}$ individuals from the population ($d_{p}$ is disturb probability). Each chosen individual is disturbed - a path fragment of random length (but containing at most 10 percent of all path vertices) is removed. Two types of disturb are possible: first version removes a random fragment of random length while heuristic version works analogically to deletion mutation - from all possible fragments of a given length it chooses the option minimizing ratio of fragment profit to path travel time decrease. Specificity of this operator is determined by parameter $d_{h}$.

4.7 Adaptation to time dependency

TDOP algorithm operates on time-dependent networks and for this reason each path modification is associated with recalculation of edge travel times after the modification point. This can be particularly time-consuming in case of heuristic operators. For this reason some modifications were applied to these parts.

**Vertex insertion:** After inserting new vertex all edge travel times after insertion place have to be recalculated. Insertion operators of the algorithm choose the best insertion place for an included vertex (minimizing travel time increase).
Trying each insertion place and recalculating weights is time consuming. However, it is possible to determine the best insertion place in $O(N)$ run time ($N$ - number of nodes in a path). The purpose of insertion is to minimize path travel time increase but it can be replaced by an equivalent goal of earliest possible arrival into the last vertex in a modified path. It can be computed in one loop over the path. In the $i$-th iteration we compare two arrival times into vertex $i$: one resulting from insertion new vertex directly before $i$ and one resulting from best insertion place chosen so far. If current insertion place is better than previous best (arrival time into vertex $i$ is earlier) we update our best choice.

**2-opt:** The purpose of 2-opt is to decrease path travel time as much as possible by edges replacement. Each edge exchange is associated with recalculating travel times in a large fragment of a path (part of it is reversed). In order to decrease execution time of 2-opt some modifications were applied - instead of time-consuming repeated recalculations of travel times the procedure tries to estimate total travel time of reversed path fragments. At first the initial travel time of the path (before changes) is divided into equal time intervals. Afterwards some reversed path fragments (starting at different times) are precomputed. Estimation is fast and based on finding an appropriate precomputed path (explanation in Figure 2). Exact calculations are performed only if estimation signals that travel time can be shortened - it significantly reduces computations.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2: Estimating travel time of reversed fragment of a path. The path is $(v_1, v_2, ..., v_{10})$ and it starts at time $t = 0$ and ends at time 80. Time was divided into $D = 4$ equal intervals and all possible vertices in reversed fragments are $v_9, v_{10}, ... v_{2}$. The figure can be treated as 2-dimensional array and in each cell there is a precomputed path fragment visiting a given vertex (determined by column) at a given time interval (determined by row). For example in order to estimate travel time of fragment $(v_7, v_6, v_5)$ starting at time $t = 27$ we should find an appropriate column ($v_7$) and row (interval 20-40) and route fragment associated with it (pointed by arrow). Afterwards we compute the difference of arrival times between $v_5$ and $v_7$ (deltaT), which is the estimation.</figcaption></figure>
# 5 Experimental results

## 5.1 Parameters

Experiments were conducted on a computer with Intel Core i7 3.5 GHz processor and algorithms were implemented in C++. In Table 1 there are values of all parameters of proposed evolutionary algorithm. Population size was set to 100 or 30. The first population size ($P_{size} = 100$) is derived from original OP algorithm, which performed computations on larger networks. The smaller population size ($P_{size} = 30$) was introduced in order to reduce execution time in smaller TDOP instances. Parameters associated with generations were adjusted to population size - their values allow algorithm to fully converge. The remaining parameters of the algorithm were determined in a process of automatic tuning. The author used Parameters ILS [14] meta-algorithm to calibrate his method. The parameters of evolutionary algorithm were tuned on classic OP calibration instances but proved to be applicable to TDOP instances as well. More details about tuning can be found in one of author's previous papers on the OP [27].

<table><caption>Table 1: Parameters of the evolutionary algorithm</caption><thead><tr><th>Param.</th><th>Value</th><th>Description</th><th>Param.</th><th>Value</th><th>Description</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>P<sub>size</sub></td><td>100/30</td><td>population size</td><td>m<sub>p</sub></td><td>1</td><td>mutation probab.</td></tr><tr><td>N<sub>g</sub></td><td>5000/1500</td><td>max. generations number</td><td>c<sub>p</sub></td><td>1</td><td>crossover probab.</td></tr><tr><td>C<sub>g</sub></td><td>500/150</td><td>max. generations number<br>without improvement</td><td>d<sub>p</sub></td><td>0.01</td><td>disturb probab.</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">α</td><td rowspan="2">90</td><td rowspan="2">max. percentage of<br>infeasible solutions</td><td>m<sub>h</sub></td><td>1</td><td>mutation heuristic coeff.</td></tr><tr><td>c<sub>h</sub></td><td>0.8</td><td>crossover heuristic coeff.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>d<sub>h</sub></td><td>0.8</td><td>disturb heuristic coeff.</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 5.2 Test instances

TDOP benchmark instances were introduced by Verbeeck et al [22]. These test instances model street traffic. The benchmark authors introduced 7 networks containing 21-102 vertices. Maximum travel times ($T_{max}$) were between 5 and 14 hours and all paths started at 7 in the morning in node 1 and ended in last node: $N$. There are three classes of benchmark networks:

- Class I contains the smallest networks (21-32 vertices). These are original TDOP instances which were solved optimally by benchmark authors.

- Class II contains all benchmark networks - they were slightly modified so that optimal results were the same as in static OP network. Details in [22].

- Class III instances were developed from previous classes by applying time discretization in order to compare author's algorithm with Gunawan's meta-heuristics [23]. Original start time was 7 am and time limit 14 hours.
<table><caption>Table 2: Results for class I instances. *N* is network size.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">N</th><th rowspan="2">T<sub>max</sub></th><th colspan="2">EVO100</th><th colspan="2">EVO30</th><th rowspan="2">ACS gap</th><th rowspan="2">opt. result</th><th rowspan="2">N</th><th rowspan="2">T<sub>max</sub></th><th colspan="2">EVO100</th><th colspan="2">EVO30</th><th rowspan="2">ACS gap</th><th rowspan="2">opt. result</th></tr><tr><th>time</th><th>gap</th><th>time</th><th>gap</th><th>time</th><th>gap</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>32</td><td>5</td><td>0.8</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>115</td><td>21</td><td>9</td><td>0.6</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>1.5</td><td>0</td><td>260</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>6</td><td>1.0</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>135</td><td>21</td><td>10</td><td>0.7</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>310</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>7</td><td>1.1</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>160</td><td>21</td><td>11</td><td>0.7</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>340</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>8</td><td>1.2</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>2.2</td><td>185</td><td>21</td><td>12</td><td>0.8</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>375</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>9</td><td>1.4</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0.5</td><td>210</td><td>21</td><td>13</td><td>0.9</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>425</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>10</td><td>1.6</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0.4</td><td>230</td><td>33</td><td>5.5</td><td>0.8</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>4.3</td><td>370</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>11</td><td>1.6</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>250</td><td>33</td><td>6.5</td><td>0.9</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>420</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>12</td><td>1.8</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>1.9</td><td>270</td><td>33</td><td>7.5</td><td>1.1</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>500</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>5</td><td>0.5</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>100</td><td>33</td><td>8.5</td><td>1.2</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>2.9</td><td>560</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>6</td><td>0.5</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>150</td><td>33</td><td>9.5</td><td>1.4</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>1.9</td><td>620</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>7</td><td>0.6</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>195</td><td>33</td><td>10.5</td><td>1.6</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0.3</td><td>650</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>8</td><td>0.6</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.3</td><td>0</td><td>220</td><td>33</td><td>11.5</td><td>1.8</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>1.2</td><td>690</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2"></td><td colspan="2">avg.</td><td>1.0</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.8</td><td>322.5</td></tr></tfoot></table>

## 5.3 Results

The author tested the evolutionary algorithm (EVO) on these instances and compared it to optimal solutions, ant-colony metaheuristic (ACS) [22] and Adaptive ILS [23]. Gaps were expressed in percent and computed as $100 \cdot (1 - \frac{res}{opt})$ where *res* is result obtained by a metaheuristic (average from 30 runs in case of EVO) and *opt* is profit of optimal solution. Execution time is given in seconds.

In Table 2 results of class I instances are given: performance of two evolutionary algorithm versions ($P_{size}$ of 100 and 30) is presented and compared to ACS and optimal solutions. EVO100 obtains optimal solutions for all test cases and is on average 0.8 percent better than ACS. The biggest obtained gap is over 4 percent. EVO30 is only 0.1 percent worse than EVO100 and is much faster. Only in one case EVO30 is much worse than EVO100 (over 1.5%).

In Table 3 results of class II instances are presented. EVO100 again achieves optimal solutions for most test cases and average gap is close to 0 percent. On average it is 1.4 percent better than ACS and for some instances the difference is more than 5 percent. EVO100 clearly outperforms ACS especially in case of some larger instances. EVO30 is on average only 0.1 percent worse than EVO100 but for some of largest test cases (100-102 nodes) the difference are larger (0.5-1.1 percent). Execution time of proposed methods is also acceptable.

In Table 4 results for class III instances are compared. The proposed method was compared with Gunawan's Adaptive ILS method (which achieved generally the best results among heuristics tested by them). Both versions of EVO are on average 1.7-2 percent better than Adaptive ILS and for most instances achieve optimal results or close to best known solutions (average gap 0.2-0.5 percent). EVO30 performance is generally slightly worse than EVO100 but it is about 1-1.5 percent worse than EVO100 for a few larger networks. Gunawan's heuristics had execution time limit of 1 second (this limit was also used in case of EVO30).
<table><caption>Table 3: Results for class II instances.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">N</th><th rowspan="2">T<sub>max</sub></th><th colspan="2">EVO100</th><th colspan="2">EVO30</th><th rowspan="2">ACS gap</th><th rowspan="2">opt. result</th><th rowspan="2">N</th><th rowspan="2">T<sub>max</sub></th><th colspan="2">EVO100</th><th colspan="2">EVO30</th><th rowspan="2">ACS gap</th><th rowspan="2">opt. result</th></tr><tr><th>time</th><th>gap</th><th>time</th><th>gap</th><th>time</th><th>gap</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>32</td><td>5</td><td>0.9</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>135</td><td>100</td><td>5</td><td>2.3</td><td>0</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.8</td><td>486</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>6</td><td>1.0</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>165</td><td>100</td><td>6</td><td>2.7</td><td>0</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.1</td><td>1.7</td><td>590</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>7</td><td>1.3</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>185</td><td>100</td><td>7</td><td>4.5</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.3</td><td>2.5</td><td>679</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>8</td><td>1.3</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>210</td><td>100</td><td>8</td><td>4.0</td><td>0</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.4</td><td>4.5</td><td>771</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>9</td><td>1.5</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>240</td><td>100</td><td>9</td><td>5.0</td><td>0</td><td>0.7</td><td>0.6</td><td>4.2</td><td>853</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>10</td><td>1.7</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>1.5</td><td>260</td><td>100</td><td>10</td><td>6.1</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.8</td><td>1.1</td><td>3</td><td>932</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>11</td><td>1.7</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>275</td><td>100</td><td>11</td><td>6.4</td><td>0</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.9</td><td>1007</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>12</td><td>1.9</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>285</td><td>100</td><td>12</td><td>8.8</td><td>0</td><td>1.1</td><td>0.1</td><td>3</td><td>1083</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>13</td><td>1.9</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>285</td><td>100</td><td>13</td><td>7.9</td><td>0</td><td>1.2</td><td>0.1</td><td>1.7</td><td>1147</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>5</td><td>0.6</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>165</td><td>100</td><td>14</td><td>9.9</td><td>0</td><td>1.2</td><td>0.6</td><td>5.3</td><td>1198</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>6</td><td>0.7</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>200</td><td>64</td><td>6.5</td><td>2.6</td><td>0</td><td>0.3</td><td>0</td><td>0.3</td><td>870</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>7</td><td>0.6</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>225</td><td>64</td><td>7</td><td>2.9</td><td>0</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.6</td><td>930</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>8</td><td>0.7</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>275</td><td>64</td><td>8</td><td>3.4</td><td>0</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.9</td><td>1056</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>9</td><td>0.7</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>315</td><td>64</td><td>9</td><td>3.9</td><td>0</td><td>0.4</td><td>0</td><td>0.8</td><td>1152</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>10</td><td>0.8</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>375</td><td>64</td><td>10</td><td>4.5</td><td>0</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.02</td><td>1.1</td><td>1236</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>11</td><td>0.8</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>415</td><td>64</td><td>11</td><td>6.1</td><td>0</td><td>0.8</td><td>0.4</td><td>1.8</td><td>1308</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>12</td><td>0.8</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>440</td><td>64</td><td>12</td><td>6.2</td><td>0</td><td>0.7</td><td>0.01</td><td>1.5</td><td>1344</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>13</td><td>0.9</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>450</td><td>64</td><td>13</td><td>6.0</td><td>0</td><td>0.6</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1344</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>5.5</td><td>0.9</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>430</td><td>64</td><td>14</td><td>6.1</td><td>0</td><td>0.6</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1344</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>6.5</td><td>1.0</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>490</td><td>102</td><td>4</td><td>2.3</td><td>0</td><td>0.3</td><td>0</td><td>5.3</td><td>532</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>7.5</td><td>1.3</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>550</td><td>102</td><td>5</td><td>2.9</td><td>0</td><td>0.4</td><td>0</td><td>6.1</td><td>648</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>8.5</td><td>1.3</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>590</td><td>102</td><td>6</td><td>3.9</td><td>0</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.2</td><td>1.1</td><td>774</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>9.5</td><td>1.5</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>630</td><td>102</td><td>7</td><td>5.0</td><td>0</td><td>0.6</td><td>0</td><td>1.8</td><td>884</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>10.5</td><td>1.7</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>680</td><td>102</td><td>8</td><td>6.5</td><td>0</td><td>0.8</td><td>0.1</td><td>6.1</td><td>994</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>11.5</td><td>1.8</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>730</td><td>102</td><td>9</td><td>7.2</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0.1</td><td>2.5</td><td>1090</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>12.5</td><td>1.9</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>770</td><td>102</td><td>10</td><td>7.7</td><td>0</td><td>1.1</td><td>0.01</td><td>3.1</td><td>1175</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>13.5</td><td>2.0</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0.8</td><td>800</td><td>102</td><td>11</td><td>8.6</td><td>0</td><td>1.4</td><td>0</td><td>4.6</td><td>1251</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>5.5</td><td>1.5</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0.3</td><td>580</td><td>102</td><td>12</td><td>9.6</td><td>0</td><td>1.3</td><td>0</td><td>3.2</td><td>1317</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>6</td><td>1.8</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.2</td><td>2.3</td><td>650</td><td>102</td><td>13</td><td>15.5</td><td>0.02</td><td>2</td><td>0.5</td><td>5.6</td><td>1368</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>7</td><td>2.5</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.3</td><td>1.6</td><td>770</td><td></td><td></td><td>avg.</td><td>3.5</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.1</td><td>1.4</td><td>710.7</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 6 Conclusions and further research

The experiments show that proposed evolutionary algorithm with memetic operators is an effective metaheuristic for the Time-Dependent Orienteering Problem (TDOP). The results obtained for TDOP benchmarks by the algorithm are optimal or close to optimal in most cases and are better than those obtained by other metaheuristics. Author's method, which was successfully used to tackle the classic Orienteering Problem (OP), achieved high quality results for TDOP benchmarks as well. Promising results suggest that that proposed method should be adapted to other related problems. Therefore further research will concentrate on application of the algorithm for other problems from OP family i.e. variants with multiple paths (Team OP and Team TDOP) and with time-windows.
<table><caption>Table 4: Results for class III instances. Symbol *d* is discretization step (in minutes).</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">d</th><th rowspan="2">N</th><th colspan="2">EVO100</th><th colspan="2">EVO30</th><th rowspan="2">Ad.ILS gap</th><th rowspan="2">best result</th><th rowspan="2">d</th><th rowspan="2">N</th><th colspan="2">EVO100</th><th colspan="2">EVO30</th><th rowspan="2">Ad.ILS gap</th><th rowspan="2">best result</th></tr><tr><th>time</th><th>gap</th><th>time</th><th>gap</th><th>time</th><th>gap</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">1</td><td>32</td><td>1.7</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.0</td><td>0.1</td><td>285</td><td rowspan="10">15</td><td>32</td><td>1.2</td><td>3.8</td><td>0.1</td><td>3.8</td><td>0</td><td>260</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>0.8</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>450</td><td>21</td><td>0.6</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>2.5</td><td>405</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>1.8</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0.3</td><td>780</td><td>33</td><td>1.4</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.1</td><td>1.3</td><td>2.5</td><td>680</td></tr><tr><td>100</td><td>16.4</td><td>0.1</td><td>1.0</td><td>0.6</td><td>8.4</td><td>1145</td><td>100</td><td>5.0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.9</td><td>5.9</td><td>864</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>6.7</td><td>0</td><td>0.8</td><td>0.2</td><td>1.0</td><td>1513</td><td>66</td><td>1.7</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0.6</td><td>870</td></tr><tr><td>64</td><td>7.9</td><td>0</td><td>0.8</td><td>0</td><td>0.5</td><td>1344</td><td>64</td><td>4.9</td><td>0</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.6</td><td>1.6</td><td>1254</td></tr><tr><td>102</td><td>36.6</td><td>0.1</td><td>1.0</td><td>1.4</td><td>6.5</td><td>1372</td><td>102</td><td>9.3</td><td>0</td><td>1.0</td><td>0.5</td><td>4.5</td><td>1068</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>1.5</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>280</td><td rowspan="4">30</td><td>32</td><td>0.9</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>220</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>0.7</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>2.2</td><td>450</td><td>21</td><td>0.5</td><td>0</td><td>0.0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>355</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>1.5</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>2.1</td><td>760</td><td>33</td><td>1.1</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>590</td></tr><tr><td>100</td><td>9.3</td><td>0</td><td>1.0</td><td>0.6</td><td>7.6</td><td>1032</td><td>100</td><td>2.4</td><td>1.2</td><td>0.3</td><td>1.7</td><td>3.5</td><td>623</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">5</td><td>66</td><td>3.2</td><td>0</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.3</td><td>1.0</td><td>1260</td><td rowspan="4"></td><td>66</td><td>1.6</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>0</td><td>0.2</td><td>850</td></tr><tr><td>64</td><td>6.1</td><td>0</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.5</td><td>2.9</td><td>1274</td><td>64</td><td>1.5</td><td>0</td><td>0.1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>768</td></tr><tr><td>102</td><td>14.4</td><td>0</td><td>1.0</td><td>1.5</td><td>6.8</td><td>1244</td><td>102</td><td>2.6</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.3</td><td>1.1</td><td>690</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>avg.</td><td>5.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.5</td><td>2.2</td><td>810.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Acknowledgements** The author is grateful for support from the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education at the Białystok University of Technology (S/WI/1/2014).

## References

1. Tsiligirides, T.: Heuristic methods applied to orienteering. Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 35 (9), 797-809, 1984.

2. Golden, B., Levy, L., Vohra, R.: The orienteering problem. Naval Research Logistics, vol. 34, 307-318, 1987.

3. Mahfoud, S.W.: Crowding and preselection revisited. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (PPSN II), Brussels, Belgium, 1992. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 27-36, 1992.

4. Chao, I., Golden, B., Wasil, E.: Theory and methodology - a fast and effective heuristic for the orienteering problem. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 88, 475-489, 1996.

5. Gendreau, M., Laporte, G., Semet, F.: A branch-and-cut algorithm for the undirected selective traveling salesman problem, Networks, vol. 32(4), 263-273, 1998.

6. Gendreau, M., Laporte, G., Semet, F.: A tabu search heuristic for the undirected selective traveling salesman problem. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 106, 539-545, 1998.

7. Fischetti, M., Salazar, J., Toth, P.: Solving the orienteering problem through branch-and-cut. INFORMS Journal on Computing, vol. 10, 133-148, 1998.

8. Tasgetiren, M.: A genetic algorithm with an adaptive penalty function for the orienteering problem. Journal of Economic and Social Res., vol. 4 (2), 1-26. 2001.

9. Fomin, F.V., Lingas, A.: Approximation algorithms for time-dependent orienteering. Information Processing Letters, vol. 83, 57-62, 2002.

10. Ilhan, T., Iravani, S.M.R., Daskin, M.S.: The orienteering problem with stochastic profits. IIE Transactions, vol. 40, 406-421, 2008.
11. Montemanni, R., Gambardella, L.: Ant colony system for team orienteering problems with time windows. Foundations of computing and Decision Sciences, vol. 34(4), 287-306, 2009.

12. Vansteenwegen, P., Souffriau, W., Vanden Berghe, G. and Oudheusden, D.V.: A guided local search metaheuristic for the team orienteering problem. European Journal of the Operational Research, vol. 196(1), 118-127, 2009.

13. Schilde, M., Doerner, K., Hartl, R., Kiechle, G.: Metaheuristics for the biobjective orienteering problem. Swarm Intelligence, vol. 3, 179-201, 2009.

14. Hutter, F., Hoos, H. H., Leyton-Brown, K., Stutzle, T.: ParamILS: an automatic algorithm configuration framework. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 36, 267-306, 2009.

15. Li, J.: Model and Algorithm for Time-Dependent Team Orienteering Problem, Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 175, 1-7, 2011.

16. Campbell, A.M., Gendreau, M., Barrett W.T.: The orienteering problem with stochastic travel and service times. Annals of Operations Research, vol. 186(1), 61-81, 2011.

17. Vansteenwegen, P., Souffriau, W., Vanden Berghe, G., Van Oudheusden, D.: The City Trip Planner: An expert system for tourists. Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38(6), 6540-6546, 2011.

18. Abbaspour, R.A., Samadzadegan, F.: Time-dependent personal tour planning and scheduling in metropolises. Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 38(10), 12439-12452, 2011.

19. Garcia, A., Vansteenwegen, P., Arbelaitz, O., Souffriau, W., Linaza, M.T.: Integrating public transportation in personalised electronic tourist guides. Computers and Operations Research, vol. 40 (3), 758-774, 2013.

20. Campos, V., Marti, R., Sanchez-Oro, J., Duarte, A.: Grasp with Path Relinking for the Orienteering Problem. Journal of the Oper. Res. Society, vol. 156, 1-14, 2013.

21. Koszelew, J., Ostrowski, K.: A Genetic Algorithm with Multiple Mutation which Solves Orienteering Problem in Large Networks. Computational Collective Intelligence. Technologies and Applications, LNCS 8083, 356-366, 2013.

22. Verbeeck, C., Srensen, K., Aghezzaf, E.H., Vansteenwegena, P.: A fast solution method for the time-dependent orienteering problem. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 236(2), 419-432, 2014.

23. Gunawan, A., Yuan, Z., Lau, H.C.: A Mathematical Model and Metaheuristics for Time Dependent Orienteering Problem. Angewandte Mathematik und Optimierung Schriftenreihe AMOS 14, 2014.

24. Ostrowski, K.: Comparison of Different Graph Weights Representations Used to Solve the Time-Dependent Orienteering Problem. Trends in Contemporary Computer Science, Podlasie 2014, Bialystok University of Technology Publishing Office, 144-154, 2014.

25. Zabielski, P., Karbowska-Chilinska, J., Koszelew, J., Ostrowski, K.: A Genetic Algorithm with Grouping Selection and Searching Operators for the Orienteering Problem. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9012, 31-40, 2015.

26. Gavalas, D., Konstantopoulos, C., Mastakas, K., Pantziou, G., Vathis, N.: Heuristics for the time dependent team orienteering problem: Application to tourist route planning. Computers and Operation Research, vol. 62, 36-50, 2015.

27. Ostrowski, K.: Parameters Tuning of Evolutionary Algorithm for the Orienteering Problem. Advances in Computer Science Research, vol. 12, 53-78, 2015.

28. Ostrowski, K., Karbowska-Chilinska, J., Koszelew, J., Zabielski, P.: Evolution-inspired local improvement algorithm solving orienteering problem. Annals of Operations Research, DOI: 10.1007/s10479-016-2278-1, 2016.