Towards a connection between the capacitated vehicle routing problem and the constrained centroid-based clustering
About
Efficiently solving a vehicle routing problem (VRP) in a practical runtime is a critical challenge for delivery management companies. This paper explores both a theoretical and experimental connection between the Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem (CVRP) and the Constrained Centroid-Based Clustering (CCBC). Reducing a CVRP to a CCBC is a synonym for a transition from an exponential to a polynomial complexity using commonly known algorithms for clustering, i.e K-means. At the beginning, we conduct an exploratory analysis to highlight the existence of such a relationship between the two problems through illustrative small-size examples and simultaneously deduce some mathematically-related formulations and properties. On a second level, the paper proposes a CCBC based approach endowed with some enhancements. The proposed framework consists of three stages. At the first step, a constrained centroid-based clustering algorithm generates feasible clusters of customers. This methodology incorporates three enhancement tools to achieve near-optimal clusters, namely: a multi-start procedure for initial centroids, a customer assignment metric, and a self-adjustment mechanism for choosing the number of clusters. At the second step, a traveling salesman problem (T SP) solver is used to optimize the order of customers within each cluster. Finally, we introduce a process relying on routes cutting and relinking procedure, which calls upon solving a linear and integer programming model to further improve the obtained routes. This step is inspired by the ruin & recreate algorithm. This approach is an extension of the classical cluster-first, route-second method and provides near-optimal solutions on well-known benchmark instances in terms of solution quality and computational runtime, offering a milestone in solving VRP.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem | AGS benchmark-derived instances Grid + Unified Depot | Missed Deliveries (%)14.48 | 15 | |
| Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem | AGS 2-instance concatenated, Grid + Scaled | Missed Deliveries Rate38.52 | 8 | |
| Vehicle Routing Problem | AGS benchmark-derived instances concatenated, Overlapping 2-instance (Flanders1, Flanders2) | Missed Deliveries (%)38.79 | 8 | |
| Vehicle Routing Problem | AGS Flanders1 & Flanders2, Grid + Original 2-instance concatenated | Missed Deliveries (%)38.43 | 8 | |
| Capacitated Vehicle Routing | 10-instance concatenated AGS (Overlapping) (test) | Solution Time (s)155.9 | 7 | |
| Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem | AGS benchmark-derived instances Grid + Scaled Flanders2, Flanders1, Brussels2, Brussels1, Ghent2, Ghent1, Antwerp2, Antwerp1, Leuven2, Leuven1 (10-instance concatenated) | Time (s)152.5 | 7 | |
| Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem | AGS Overlapping | Solution Time (s)150.8 | 7 | |
| Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem | AGS benchmark (Grid + Scaled) | Total Time (s)153.2 | 7 | |
| Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem | AGS Grid + Original 6-instance concatenated (Flanders2, Flanders1, Brussels2, Brussels1, Ghent2, Ghent1) | Missed Deliveries (%)28.4 | 7 | |
| Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem | AGS Grid + Scaled 6-instance concatenated (Flanders2, Flanders1, Brussels2, Brussels1, Ghent2, Ghent1) | Missed Deliveries (%)28.43 | 7 |