Analysis of the performance of different implementations of a heuristic method to optimize forest harvest scheduling

Finding an optimal solution of forest management scheduling problems with even flow constraints while addressing spatial concerns is not an easy task. Solving these combinatorial problems exactly with mixed-integer programming (MIP) methods may be infeasible or else involve excessive comp...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Bachmatiuk, Joanna, Garcia-Gonzalo, Jordi, Borges, Jose
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Finnish Society of Forest Science 2015-01-01
Series:Silva Fennica
Online Access:https://www.silvafennica.fi/article/1326
id doaj-17db055a32274969a8ff08d9d7919635
record_format Article
spelling doaj-17db055a32274969a8ff08d9d79196352020-11-25T02:01:14ZengFinnish Society of Forest ScienceSilva Fennica2242-40752015-01-0149410.14214/sf.1326Analysis of the performance of different implementations of a heuristic method to optimize forest harvest schedulingBachmatiuk, JoannaGarcia-Gonzalo, JordiBorges, Jose Finding an optimal solution of forest management scheduling problems with even flow constraints while addressing spatial concerns is not an easy task. Solving these combinatorial problems exactly with mixed-integer programming (MIP) methods may be infeasible or else involve excessive computational costs. This has prompted the use of heuristics. In this paper we analyze the performance of different implementations of the Simulated Annealing (SA) heuristic algorithm for solving three typical harvest scheduling problems. Typically SA consists of searching a better solution by changing one decision choice in each iteration. In forest planning this means that one treatment schedule in a single stand is changed in each iteration (i.e. one-opt move). We present a comparison of the performance of the typical implementation of SA with the new implementation where up to three decision choices are changed simultaneously in each iteration (i.e. treatment schedules are changed in more than one stand). This may allow avoiding local optimal. In addition, the impact of SA - parameters (i.e. cooling schedule and initial temperature) are tested. We compare our heuristic results with a MIP formulation. The study case is tested in a real forest with 1000 stands and a total of 213116 decision choices. The study shows that when the combinatorial problem is very large, changing simultaneously the treatment schedule in more than one stand does not improve the performance of SA. Contrarily, if we reduce the size of the problem (i.e. reduce considerably the number of alternatives per stand) the two-opt moves approach performs better.https://www.silvafennica.fi/article/1326
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Bachmatiuk, Joanna
Garcia-Gonzalo, Jordi
Borges, Jose
spellingShingle Bachmatiuk, Joanna
Garcia-Gonzalo, Jordi
Borges, Jose
Analysis of the performance of different implementations of a heuristic method to optimize forest harvest scheduling
Silva Fennica
author_facet Bachmatiuk, Joanna
Garcia-Gonzalo, Jordi
Borges, Jose
author_sort Bachmatiuk, Joanna
title Analysis of the performance of different implementations of a heuristic method to optimize forest harvest scheduling
title_short Analysis of the performance of different implementations of a heuristic method to optimize forest harvest scheduling
title_full Analysis of the performance of different implementations of a heuristic method to optimize forest harvest scheduling
title_fullStr Analysis of the performance of different implementations of a heuristic method to optimize forest harvest scheduling
title_full_unstemmed Analysis of the performance of different implementations of a heuristic method to optimize forest harvest scheduling
title_sort analysis of the performance of different implementations of a heuristic method to optimize forest harvest scheduling
publisher Finnish Society of Forest Science
series Silva Fennica
issn 2242-4075
publishDate 2015-01-01
description Finding an optimal solution of forest management scheduling problems with even flow constraints while addressing spatial concerns is not an easy task. Solving these combinatorial problems exactly with mixed-integer programming (MIP) methods may be infeasible or else involve excessive computational costs. This has prompted the use of heuristics. In this paper we analyze the performance of different implementations of the Simulated Annealing (SA) heuristic algorithm for solving three typical harvest scheduling problems. Typically SA consists of searching a better solution by changing one decision choice in each iteration. In forest planning this means that one treatment schedule in a single stand is changed in each iteration (i.e. one-opt move). We present a comparison of the performance of the typical implementation of SA with the new implementation where up to three decision choices are changed simultaneously in each iteration (i.e. treatment schedules are changed in more than one stand). This may allow avoiding local optimal. In addition, the impact of SA - parameters (i.e. cooling schedule and initial temperature) are tested. We compare our heuristic results with a MIP formulation. The study case is tested in a real forest with 1000 stands and a total of 213116 decision choices. The study shows that when the combinatorial problem is very large, changing simultaneously the treatment schedule in more than one stand does not improve the performance of SA. Contrarily, if we reduce the size of the problem (i.e. reduce considerably the number of alternatives per stand) the two-opt moves approach performs better.
url https://www.silvafennica.fi/article/1326
work_keys_str_mv AT bachmatiukjoanna analysisoftheperformanceofdifferentimplementationsofaheuristicmethodtooptimizeforestharvestscheduling
AT garciagonzalojordi analysisoftheperformanceofdifferentimplementationsofaheuristicmethodtooptimizeforestharvestscheduling
AT borgesjose analysisoftheperformanceofdifferentimplementationsofaheuristicmethodtooptimizeforestharvestscheduling
_version_ 1724957865060335616