huangfu/Enterprise
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

add paper_fixed experiment results (30 seeds × 1000 iter)

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
huangfu
2026-06-03 11:49:59 +08:00
parent 5da471b67f
commit 2ebcf65e25
5 changed files with 437 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

225
t_alns_rrd_reproduction/results/paper_fixed/REPORT.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,225 @@
# T-ALNS-RRD 论文复现 —— Paper-Fixed 实验报告
> **实验配置**: `configs/paper.yaml`, 30 seeds × 1000 iterations, θ=50, 纯弧行驶时间
> **实验日期**: 2026-06-02
> **复现类型**: 基于合成数据的算法机制复现 (Methodological Reproduction)
> **相对于 v2 的主要修复**: (a) 奖励四级分类 (σ₁/σ₂/σ₃/σ₄), (b) 多样化强度使用 |T_move| 而非 tenure, (c) 补全交通适应赦免, (d) 行驶时间仅计算纯弧遍历时间, (e) RRD RNG 确定性播种, (f) E2 幽灵节点替换为 penalty 动作
---
## 第一章：实验背景与改进
### 1.1 复现定位
由于论文原始数据集需向作者合理请求且暂未公开，本复现采用与论文实验规模一致的 **自定义合成数据集 (47 客户, 4 车辆, 12 时段)**，重点验证不同算法模块对总成本、准时率和拥堵暴露的**相对影响趋势**，而非精确复刻原文的绝对数值。
### 1.2 相对于前序版本的算法改进
| 修复项 | v2 calibrated 行为 | paper-fixed 行为 | 影响 |
|--------|-------------------|-----------------|------|
| 奖励分类 | σ₂=0.5 覆盖所有被接受移动 (含 SA 劣解) | 严格四级: σ₁=1.0, σ₂=0.5, σ₃=0.2, σ₄=0.0 | 自适应权重不再过度奖励劣解算子 |
| 多样化强度 | δ(t) 用 `self.tenure` (自适应参数值) | δ(t) 用 `|T_move|/|T_move|max` (Tabu 列表占用率) | 对齐论文 Eq.27 语义 |
| 交通适应赦免 | 未实现 (始终返回 False) | 正确比较 candidate vs current 拥堵暴露 | 赦免准则完整 |
| 行驶时间核算 | `total_travel_time = 路线总耗时` (含等待+服务) | `total_travel_time = Σ t_ij(T_i)` (纯弧遍历) | 对齐论文 Eq.1 的旅行时间项 |
| RRD RNG | `np.random.default_rng(None)` 无播种 | 确定性种子 (seed+101/202/303 偏移) | 可复现 |
| E2 幽灵节点 | 插入负数 ID 到 fixed tensor → numpy 越界 | 替换为 `urgent_defer` / `subcontract` penalty 动作 | 消除 crash risk |
---
## 第二章：实验结果
### 2.1 主对比实验
**实验规格**: 30 seeds × 1000 iterations, paired t-test, θ=50, λ₁=λ₂=1.0, SA cooling=0.99975
| Algorithm | Total Cost | σ | OTDR | CES | Travel | Delay | Congest | Time |
|-----------|:----------:|:--:|:----:|:----:|:------:|:-----:|:-------:|:----:|
| Static-VRPTW | 9354.3 | ±0.0 | 57.4% | 1769.6 | 194.5 | 7390.2 | 1769.6 | 0.16s |
| TA-VRPTW-Greedy | 1271.5 | ±21.9 | 95.6% | 1094.4 | 166.2 | 11.0 | 1094.4 | 0.05s |
| ALNS-Base | 1198.4 | ±3.6 | 98.5% | 1077.8 | 120.1 | 0.47 | 1077.8 | 31.4s |
| T-ALNS | 1198.4 | ±3.0 | 98.5% | 1076.4 | 121.4 | 0.55 | 1076.4 | 33.4s |
| T-ALNS-RRD | 1198.3 | ±3.4 | 98.7% | 1076.4 | 121.4 | 0.52 | 1076.4 | 32.3s |
### 2.2 显著性检验
| 对比 | t 值 | p 值 | 显著性 |
|------|:----:|:----:|:------:|
| Static → TA-Greedy | 2021.7 | <0.001 | *** |
| TA-Greedy → ALNS-Base | 18.6 | <0.001 | *** |
| ALNS-Base → T-ALNS | -0.05 | 0.96 | ns |
| ALNS-Base → T-ALNS-RRD | 0.07 | 0.95 | ns |
| T-ALNS → T-ALNS-RRD | 0.46 | 0.65 | ns |
![Main Comparison](figures/fig_main_comparison.png)
![Significance Heatmap](figures/fig_significance.png)
---
## 第三章：逐层分析
### 3.1 第一跳：Static → TA-Greedy (-86.4%, p<0.001)
这是**整个算法链条中最大的单一贡献**。总成本从 9354.3 降至 1271.5，降幅高达 86.4%。
**成本结构分解**:
| 成本项 | Static | TA-Greedy | 变化 |
|--------|:------:|:---------:|:----:|
| Travel Time (arc) | 194.5 | 166.2 | -14.6% |
| Delay Penalty | 7390.2 | 11.0 | **-99.9%** |
| Congestion | 1769.6 | 1094.4 | -38.2% |
**解读**: Static 在规划路线时使用 12 时段平均行驶时间，不考虑拥堵的时间分布。在真实时变交通条件下评估时，绝大多数客户错过了时间窗（Delay=7390, OTDR=57.4%）。TA-Greedy 仅通过"知道哪个时段有拥堵"就消除了 99.9% 的迟到。
**核心洞察**: 在城配问题中，"知堵"比"优算"更重要。一个简单的交通感知贪心构造就能获得比无交通感知的复杂优化好得多的结果。
### 3.2 第二跳：TA-Greedy → ALNS-Base (-5.7%, p<0.001)
ALNS 在交通感知贪心解的基础上进一步降低总成本 5.7%：
| 成本项 | TA-Greedy | ALNS-Base | 变化 |
|--------|:---------:|:---------:|:----:|
| Travel Time | 166.2 | 120.1 | **-27.7%** |
| Delay Penalty | 11.0 | 0.47 | **-95.7%** |
| Congestion | 1094.4 | 1077.8 | -1.5% |
**解读**: ALNS 的 destroy-repair 全局搜索主要在**行程效率**上产生收益——行驶时间减少了 27.7%，并将残余迟到降到几乎为零。拥堵暴露仅微降 1.5%，这是因为 TA-Greedy 已经很好地规避了高峰期路段，ALNS 的优化空间有限。
**标准差**: ALNS 的标准差 (σ=3.6) 远小于 TA-Greedy (σ=21.9)，说明元启发式搜索不仅降低了均值，也提高了不同随机种子下解的**一致性**——这对运营可靠性很重要。
### 3.3 第三跳：ALNS-Base → T-ALNS (差异不显著, p=0.96)
T-ALNS 的均值成本 (1198.44) 与 ALNS (1198.39) 几乎相等。方差从 σ=3.57 降至 σ=3.01（降 15.7%），方向正确但幅度远小于 v2 版本的 75% 方差降幅。
**为什么不显著？三个原因**:
1. **SA 冷却不足**: γ=0.99975 在 1000 次迭代后温度仍有初始值的 78%。SA 在整个搜索过程中大量接受随机劣解，Tabu 的防循环效果被 SA 的随机探索噪声淹没了。
2. **成本地貌扁平**: 当前配置下 (ρ = θ×γ, θ=50)，拥堵成本占总成本的 ~85%，且拥堵成本在经过 TA-Greedy 后已经基本固定。纯弧行驶时间仅占 ~10%，留给 Tabu 优化的空间本身就很小。
3. **Tabu 需要充分迭代**: 消融实验 (v2 版本, 1000 iter × 5 seeds) 中 Tabu 在第 500-1000 代才开始与 ALNS 分离——而此时 SA 仍在高温状态，Tabu 效应尚未完全发挥。
**正向趋势**: OTDR 保持 98.5%（与 ALNS 持平），标准差略降，所有指标方向正确。
### 3.4 第四跳：T-ALNS → T-ALNS-RRD (差异不显著, p=0.65)
T-ALNS-RRD 的表现 (1198.32) 与 T-ALNS (1198.44) 几乎相同。**关键观察**：在 30 个种子中，前 10 个种子 (seed 0-9) 的 T-ALNS 和 RRD 结果完全相同——这意味着这些运行中**没有触发任何 RRD 事件**。
当事件被触发时 (seed 10, 19, 25)，RRD 的性能有提升也有下降：
- Seed 10: RRD 比 T-ALNS 降低 6.06 成本单位
- Seed 19: RRD 降低 1.70
- Seed 25: RRD 升高 4.29
**受限因素**:
- RRD 在单线程中与 T-ALNS 交替执行（论文要求双线程并行架构）
- 事件触发概率 30% × 每 10 代检查 = 平均 3 次事件/运行
- 事件发生后立即恢复交通张量，影响了 rollout 模拟的真实性
### 3.5 计算时间对比
| Algorithm | Time (s) | 备注 |
|-----------|:--------:|------|
| Static-VRPTW | 0.16 | 单次贪心构造 |
| TA-VRPTW-Greedy | 0.05 | 单次贪心构造 |
| ALNS-Base | 31.4 | 1000 iter destroy-repair |
| T-ALNS | 33.4 | +6.4% vs ALNS (Tabu 检索开销) |
| T-ALNS-RRD | 32.3 | 介于两者之间 (事件检测+dispatch) |
T-ALNS 比 ALNS 略慢 (+6.4%) 是因为每次迭代要检查三层 Tabu 记忆和赦免准则。RRD 的实际开销被 "无事件即跳过" 的模式所掩盖。
---
## 第四章：与论文结果的对比
### 4.1 论文报告结果
| 指标 | 论文 T-ALNS-RRD | 数值含义 |
|------|:--------------:|---------|
| 总成本降低 | 24.3% vs Static | ~2157 vs ~2848 |
| OTDR 提升 | 68.1% → 92.8% | 准时率大幅提升 |
| CES 降低 | 54.4% | 拥堵暴露大幅减少 |
| SOTA 改善 | 6.6% (p<0.001) | 相对元启发式 |
### 4.2 本次复现结果
| 指标 | 本次复现 | 论文 |
|------|:-------:|:----:|
| Static → TA 降幅 | **86.4%** | 未单独报告 TA |
| TA → ALNS 降幅 | **5.7%** | 隐含在 24.3% 中 |
| OTDR (最优) | 98.7% | 92.8% |
| T-ALNS vs ALNS | ns (p=0.96) | — |
### 4.3 差异分析
| 差异项 | 原因 |
|--------|------|
| 复现 Static 成本更高 (9354 vs ~2848) | 论文未明确说明 Static 的评估方式。复现使用真实时变交通条件评估，delay 占比大。论文可能使用了不同的成本尺度或评估逻辑。 |
| 复现 OTDR 更高 (98.7% vs 92.8%) | 交通感知贪心已经达到 95.6% OTDR，因为客户时间窗宽松（60-150 min），且完全图上有无限绕路可能。 |
| T-ALNS 均值不显著 | SA 冷却不足 + 拥堵占成本主导 → Tabu 优化空间小 |
---
## 第五章：关键发现总结
### 5.1 核心结论
1. **交通感知是最大的单一贡献者** (成本 -86.4%, p<0.001)：仅"知道何时何地拥堵"就消除了 99.9% 的迟到，降低了 38% 的拥堵暴露。在城配优化中，**信息优势远超算法优势**。
2. **ALNS 提供有意义的增量改进** (再降 5.7%, p<0.001)：元启发式全局搜索在行程效率和残余迟到消除上产生显著改善，且降低了不同随机种子间解的方差。
3. **Tabu 记忆的效果受 SA 温度限制**：在 1000 次迭代和 γ=0.99975 的配置下，SA 仍处于高温探索状态，Tabu 的防循环效果被随机噪声掩盖。方差从 σ=3.57 降至 σ=3.01 表明稳定性在改善，但需要更多迭代才能显著体现。
4. **RRD 的事件驱动效果不显著**：在同步模拟架构下，事件触发频率低，rollout 模拟简化，dispatch 开销在无事件时为零。论文的双线程并行架构对 RRD 性能至关重要。
### 5.2 与前版本的差异
| 指标 | v2 calibrated | paper-fixed | 变化原因 |
|------|:------------:|:-----------:|---------|
| Static Cost | 15321.9 | 9354.3 | 行驶时间从路线总耗时改为纯弧遍历 |
| TA Cost | 5013.1 | 1271.5 | 同上 + ρ=θ×γ 替代 ρ=θ×extra_time×γ |
| ALNS Cost | 3246.8 | 1198.4 | 同上 |
| Static Delay | 9017 | 7390 | travel time 拆分后，delay = route_end - travel - service |
| ALNS σ | 104.2 | 3.6 | ρ 简化后成本地貌更平滑 |
### 5.3 局限性与改进方向
| 局限 | 建议 |
|------|------|
| SA 温度冷却太慢 (γ=0.99975) | 增加 max_iterations 至 5000+ 或调低 cooling_rate |
| 拥堵惩罚 ρ 占成本主导 (~85%) | 可考虑降低 θ 或增加 λ₁ 以平衡成本成分 |
| RRD 单线程模拟 | 实现真正的双线程并行架构 |
| 缺少消融实验 | 补跑 Move Tabu / Freq Mem / Full 三级消融 |
| 收敛曲线未绘制 | 利用已有 convergence.npz 数据生成收敛图 |
---
## 第六章：运行记录
### 实验命令
```bash
cd t_alns_rrd_reproduction
pip install -r requirements.txt
python src/experiments/run_main_comparison.py \
--config paper --seeds 30 --iterations 1000 \
--time-limit 600 --output results/paper_fixed
```
### 实验产物
| 文件 | 说明 |
|------|------|
| `results/paper_fixed/tables/main_comparison.csv` | 主对比汇总表 |
| `results/paper_fixed/tables/per_seed_costs.csv` | 30 seeds × 5 算法逐种子成本 |
| `results/paper_fixed/tables/statistical_tests.csv` | Paired t-test 结果 |
| `results/paper_fixed/logs/convergence.npz` | 每个算法的逐代最优成本轨迹 |
| `results/paper_fixed/logs/run_main.log` | 完整运行 log |
| `results/paper_fixed/figures/fig_main_comparison.png` | 四面板主对比图 |
| `results/paper_fixed/figures/fig_significance.png` | 显著性热力图 |
| `results/paper_fixed/config_used.yaml` | 使用的完整配置 |
---
## 复现声明
> 由于原文数据集需向作者合理请求，且目前尚未获得完整数据与代码，本项目采用与论文实验规模和数据结构相近的自定义合成数据集，复现其核心算法流程和对比实验框架。复现重点在于验证不同算法模块对总成本、准时率、拥堵暴露和实时扰动响应能力的相对影响，而非逐项复刻原文数值结果。本项目属于基于合成数据的算法机制复现 (methodological reproduction)。

137
t_alns_rrd_reproduction/results/paper_fixed/config_used.yaml Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
# Canonical paper-aligned configuration for T-ALNS-RRD reproduction.
# This is the primary server-run config. It preserves the paper's controlled
# mid-scale instance: 47 customers, 4 homogeneous vehicles, 120 kg capacity,
# 12 one-hour traffic intervals from 6:00 to 18:00, and 30 seeds.
problem:
n_customers: 47
n_vehicles: 4
depot_count: 1
vehicle_capacity_kg: 120
service_time_min: 4
area_width_km: 8.0
area_height_km: 10.0
operating_start: 360
operating_end: 1080
n_time_intervals: 12
customers:
demand_min_kg: 3
demand_max_kg: 12
window_length_min: 60
window_length_max: 150
time_window_categories:
morning:
earliest: 540
latest: 720
afternoon:
earliest: 780
latest: 960
evening:
earliest: 1020
latest: 1200
num_clusters: 3
cluster_labels: ["residential", "commercial", "office"]
roads:
types:
arterial:
speed_kmh: 45
proportion: 0.25
collector:
speed_kmh: 30
proportion: 0.35
residential:
speed_kmh: 20
proportion: 0.40
noise_std: 0.05
use_complete_graph: true
traffic:
multipliers: [1.0, 1.0, 1.6, 1.6, 1.2, 1.2, 1.0, 1.0, 1.2, 1.2, 1.7, 1.7]
congestion_scale_theta: 50.0
risk_aversion_beta: 0.3
uncertainty_base: 0.05
cost:
lambda_lateness: 1.0
lambda_congestion: 1.0
lambda_stability: 0.3
alns:
max_iterations: 1000
time_limit_sec: 600
destroy_ratio_min: 0.1
destroy_ratio_max: 0.4
initial_temperature_factor: 0.05
cooling_rate: 0.99975
reaction_factor: 0.1
segment_length: 100
stall_limit: 200
max_attempts: 5
reward_global_best: 1.0
reward_improvement: 0.5
reward_accepted: 0.2
reward_rejected: 0.0
tabu:
move_tabu:
tenure: 7
tenure_min: 3
tenure_max: 12
overlap_threshold: 0.5
stall_for_increase: 50
solution_tabu:
tenure: 15
buffer_size: 1000
hash_prime: 1000000007
frequency:
normalization_factor: 2
normalization_interval: 50
diversification:
delta_max: 0.7
eta_balance: 0.5
weights: [0.4, 0.3, 0.3]
aspiration:
beta_threshold: 0.3
gamma_threshold: 0.8
rrd:
rollout:
horizon_min_min: 30
horizon_max_min: 120
urgency_alpha: 1.0
n_sim_min: 2
n_sim_max: 50
mc_iterations: 50
time_overhead_ms: 10
time_per_sim_ms: 50
dispatch:
weight_rollout: 0.4
weight_stability: 0.3
weight_recovery: 0.3
tabu:
penalty: 50.0
bonus: 25.0
events:
urgency_threshold: 0.5
event_probability: 0.3
event_check_interval: 10
weights:
E1_traffic: [0.5, 0.3, 0.2]
E2_urgent: [0.7, 0.1, 0.2]
E3_capacity: [0.3, 0.4, 0.3]
E4_timewindow: [0.8, 0.1, 0.1]
max_actions: 20
experiments:
random_seeds: 30
seed_start: 1
report_mean_std: true
statistical_testing: true
sensitivity:
fleet_sizes: [2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
customer_counts: [30, 40, 47, 60]
capacities: [80, 100, 120, 140, 160]
robustness:
sigma_values: [0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5]

58
t_alns_rrd_reproduction/results/paper_fixed/run_main.log Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
======================================================================
T-ALNS-RRD Main Comparison [paper]
Seeds: 1..30, Iter: 1000, Time: 600s
======================================================================
[1/5] Generating dataset...
Dataset generated: /home/huangfuqixun/workspace/enterprise/t_alns_rrd_reproduction/data/synthetic
Customers: 47
Arcs: 2256
Traffic tensor: (48, 48, 12)
Total data points: ~82944
[Static-VRPTW] Running 30 seeds...
0%| | 0/30 [00:00<?, ?it/s]
3%|▎ | 1/30 [00:00<00:04, 6.32it/s]
7%|▋ | 2/30 [00:00<00:04, 6.38it/s]
10%|█ | 3/30 [00:00<00:04, 6.39it/s]
13%|█▎ | 4/30 [00:00<00:04, 6.41it/s]
17%|█▋ | 5/30 [00:00<00:03, 6.42it/s]
20%|██ | 6/30 [00:00<00:03, 6.42it/s]
23%|██▎ | 7/30 [00:01<00:03, 6.41it/s]
27%|██▋ | 8/30 [00:01<00:03, 6.36it/s]
30%|███ | 9/30 [00:01<00:03, 6.36it/s]
33%|███▎ | 10/30 [00:01<00:03, 6.36it/s]
37%|███▋ | 11/30 [00:01<00:02, 6.36it/s]
40%|████ | 12/30 [00:01<00:02, 6.37it/s]
43%|████▎ | 13/30 [00:02<00:02, 6.37it/s]
47%|████▋ | 14/30 [00:02<00:02, 6.36it/s]
50%|█████ | 15/30 [00:02<00:02, 6.39it/s]
53%|█████▎ | 16/30 [00:02<00:02, 6.40it/s]
57%|█████▋ | 17/30 [00:02<00:02, 6.39it/s]
60%|██████ | 18/30 [00:02<00:01, 6.40it/s]
63%|██████▎ | 19/30 [00:02<00:01, 6.40it/s]
67%|██████▋ | 20/30 [00:03<00:01, 6.41it/s]
70%|███████ | 21/30 [00:03<00:01, 6.38it/s]
73%|███████▎ | 22/30 [00:03<00:01, 6.39it/s]
77%|███████▋ | 23/30 [00:03<00:01, 6.39it/s]
80%|████████ | 24/30 [00:03<00:00, 6.39it/s]
83%|████████▎ | 25/30 [00:03<00:00, 6.39it/s]
87%|████████▋ | 26/30 [00:04<00:00, 6.40it/s]
90%|█████████ | 27/30 [00:04<00:00, 6.42it/s]
93%|█████████▎| 28/30 [00:04<00:00, 6.43it/s]
97%|█████████▋| 29/30 [00:04<00:00, 6.43it/s]
100%|██████████| 30/30 [00:04<00:00, 6.43it/s]
100%|██████████| 30/30 [00:04<00:00, 6.39it/s]
Cost=9354.3±0.0 OTDR=57.4% CES=1769.6
[TA-VRPTW-Greedy] Running 30 seeds...
0%| | 0/30 [00:00<?, ?it/s]
10%|█ | 3/30 [00:00<00:01, 22.37it/s]
20%|██ | 6/30 [00:00<00:01, 20.37it/s]
30%|███ | 9/30 [00:00<00:01, 19.35it/s]
37%|███▋ | 11/30 [00:00<00:01, 18.79it/s]
47%|████▋ | 14/30 [00:00<00:00, 19.57it/s]
57%|█████▋ | 17/30 [00:00<00:00, 19.60it/s]
63%|██████▎ | 19/30 [00:00<00:00, 19.68it/s]

6
t_alns_rrd_reproduction/results/paper_fixed/tables/main_comparison.csv Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
algorithm,total_cost_mean,total_cost_std,otdr_mean,otdr_std,ces_mean,ces_std,travel_time_mean,delay_penalty_mean,congestion_cost_mean,computation_time_mean,avg_delay_mean,max_delay_mean,late_customers_mean
Static-VRPTW,9354.336599999991,3.700170984052295e-12,57.446808510638306,0.0,1769.6376000000002,4.625213730065368e-13,194.53399999999993,7390.164999999998,1769.6376000000002,0.15597200393676758,369.50824999999963,531.4338999999997,20.0
TA-VRPTW-Greedy,1271.5429266666665,21.898279178367986,95.60283687943264,2.675788190765346,1094.3976966666667,15.408475341803056,166.1685433333333,10.97668666666669,1094.3976966666667,0.04896566867828369,4.456140000000001,7.047916666666648,2.066666666666667
ALNS-Base,1198.3858666666667,3.5668530942683696,98.51063829787233,1.3856568684743764,1077.81513,3.94942556810921,120.10344666666666,0.46729000000001025,1077.81513,31.414160950978598,0.4063183333333427,0.411800000000009,0.7
T-ALNS,1198.4360433333334,3.0142268443892664,98.51063829787233,1.2680073048264633,1076.4449699999998,3.936876366390147,121.43683333333334,0.5542400000000005,1076.4449699999998,33.431352750460306,0.4482616666666691,0.508710000000004,0.7
T-ALNS-RRD,1198.3182233333332,3.39367909702359,98.65248226950354,1.1830923761011403,1076.4059699999998,3.831026484318742,121.39075333333334,0.5215000000000032,1076.4059699999998,32.291462103525795,0.43189166666667045,0.4909266666666705,0.6333333333333333
1 algorithm total_cost_mean total_cost_std otdr_mean otdr_std ces_mean ces_std travel_time_mean delay_penalty_mean congestion_cost_mean computation_time_mean avg_delay_mean max_delay_mean late_customers_mean
2 Static-VRPTW 9354.336599999991 3.700170984052295e-12 57.446808510638306 0.0 1769.6376000000002 4.625213730065368e-13 194.53399999999993 7390.164999999998 1769.6376000000002 0.15597200393676758 369.50824999999963 531.4338999999997 20.0
3 TA-VRPTW-Greedy 1271.5429266666665 21.898279178367986 95.60283687943264 2.675788190765346 1094.3976966666667 15.408475341803056 166.1685433333333 10.97668666666669 1094.3976966666667 0.04896566867828369 4.456140000000001 7.047916666666648 2.066666666666667
4 ALNS-Base 1198.3858666666667 3.5668530942683696 98.51063829787233 1.3856568684743764 1077.81513 3.94942556810921 120.10344666666666 0.46729000000001025 1077.81513 31.414160950978598 0.4063183333333427 0.411800000000009 0.7
5 T-ALNS 1198.4360433333334 3.0142268443892664 98.51063829787233 1.2680073048264633 1076.4449699999998 3.936876366390147 121.43683333333334 0.5542400000000005 1076.4449699999998 33.431352750460306 0.4482616666666691 0.508710000000004 0.7
6 T-ALNS-RRD 1198.3182233333332 3.39367909702359 98.65248226950354 1.1830923761011403 1076.4059699999998 3.831026484318742 121.39075333333334 0.5215000000000032 1076.4059699999998 32.291462103525795 0.43189166666667045 0.4909266666666705 0.6333333333333333

11
t_alns_rrd_reproduction/results/paper_fixed/tables/statistical_tests.csv Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
algo_a,algo_b,t_statistic,p_value,significant
Static-VRPTW,TA-VRPTW-Greedy,2021.6786837378515,3.2068141237198977e-76,***
Static-VRPTW,ALNS-Base,12524.200118378203,3.4436402476561224e-99,***
Static-VRPTW,T-ALNS,14820.287066218702,2.6117174361391014e-101,***
Static-VRPTW,T-ALNS-RRD,13163.399121162758,8.130072129529089e-100,***
TA-VRPTW-Greedy,ALNS-Base,18.5536525614471,1.2426941015708843e-17,***
TA-VRPTW-Greedy,T-ALNS,18.38040998746316,1.5979158169693442e-17,***
TA-VRPTW-Greedy,T-ALNS-RRD,18.614318488614693,1.1384998643238919e-17,***
ALNS-Base,T-ALNS,-0.05072081401824748,0.9598957400618513,ns
ALNS-Base,T-ALNS-RRD,0.06581044035553706,0.9479803419104813,ns
T-ALNS,T-ALNS-RRD,0.45800454612205393,0.6503626551192184,ns
1 algo_a algo_b t_statistic p_value significant
2 Static-VRPTW TA-VRPTW-Greedy 2021.6786837378515 3.2068141237198977e-76 ***
3 Static-VRPTW ALNS-Base 12524.200118378203 3.4436402476561224e-99 ***
4 Static-VRPTW T-ALNS 14820.287066218702 2.6117174361391014e-101 ***
5 Static-VRPTW T-ALNS-RRD 13163.399121162758 8.130072129529089e-100 ***
6 TA-VRPTW-Greedy ALNS-Base 18.5536525614471 1.2426941015708843e-17 ***
7 TA-VRPTW-Greedy T-ALNS 18.38040998746316 1.5979158169693442e-17 ***
8 TA-VRPTW-Greedy T-ALNS-RRD 18.614318488614693 1.1384998643238919e-17 ***
9 ALNS-Base T-ALNS -0.05072081401824748 0.9598957400618513 ns
10 ALNS-Base T-ALNS-RRD 0.06581044035553706 0.9479803419104813 ns
11 T-ALNS T-ALNS-RRD 0.45800454612205393 0.6503626551192184 ns