skip to main content
10.1145/3347146.3359375acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgisConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Multi-Itinerary Optimization as Cloud Service (Industrial Paper)

Published:05 November 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we describe Multi-Itinerary Optimization (MIO) - a novel Bing maps service that automates the process of building itineraries for multiple agents while optimizing their routes to save travel time or distance. MIO can be used by organizations with a fleet of vehicles and drivers, mobile salesforce, or a team of personnel in the field in order to maximize workforce efficiency. MIO accounts for service time windows, duration, and priority, as well as traffic conditions between locations, resulting in challenging algorithmic problems at multiple levels (e.g., calculating travel-time distance matrices at scale, scheduling services for multiple agents).

To support an end-to-end cloud service with turnaround times of a few seconds, our algorithm design targets a sweet spot between accuracy and performance. Towards that end, we build a scalable solution based on the ALNS meta-heuristic. Our experiments show that accounting for traffic significantly improves solution quality: MIO not only avoids violating time-window constraints, but also completes up to 17% more services compared to traffic-agnostic mechanisms. Further, our solution generates itineraries with better accuracy than both a cutting-edge heuristic (LKH3) and an Integer-Programming based algorithm, with twice and orders-of-magnitude faster running times, respectively.

References

  1. 2007. What Is the ROADEF Challenge? http://www.roadef.org/challenge/2007/en/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2018. Resource Scheduling Optimization (RSO). https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dynamics365/customer-engagement/field-service/rso-overview.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 2019. Azure pricing. Retrieved June 7, 2019 from https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/pricing/details/virtual-machines/windows/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 2019. Bing Maps Multi-Itinerary Optimization. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/bingmaps/rest-services/routes/optimized-itinerary.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 2019. Calculate directions between locations using the Google Maps Directions API. https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/directions/intro.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 2019. Routific Engine API. https://docs.routific.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. 2019. TomTom Routing API. https://developer.tomtom.com/routing-api/routing-api-documentation-routing/calculate-route.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Ittai Abraham, Daniel Delling, Andrew V. Goldberg, and Renato F. Werneck. 2011. A Hub-Based Labeling Algorithm for Shortest Paths in Road Networks. In Experimental Algorithms (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Panos M. Pardalos and Steffen Rebennack (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 230--241.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Cynthia Barnhart, Ellis L. Johnson, George L. Nemhauser, Martin W. P. Savelsbergh, and Pamela H. Vance. 1998. Branch-and-Price: Column Generation for Solving Huge Integer Programs. Operations Research 46, 3 (June 1998), 316--329. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.46.3.316Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Xi Chen, Barrett W. Thomas, and Mike Hewitt. 2016. The Technician Routing Problem with Experience-Based Service Times. Omega 61 (June 2016), 49--61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.07.006Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Jean-François Cordeau, Gilbert Laporte, Federico Pasin, and Stefan Ropke. 2010. Scheduling Technicians and Tasks in a Telecommunications Company. Journal of Scheduling 13, 4 (Aug. 2010), 393--409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10951-010-0188-7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Rodrigo Ferreira da Silva and Sebastián Urrutia. 2010. A General VNS Heuristic for the Traveling Salesman Problem with Time Windows. Discrete Optimization 7, 4 (Nov. 2010), 203--211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.disopt.2010.04.002Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Brian C Dean. 2004. Shortest Paths in FIFO Time-Dependent Networks: Theory and Algorithms. Rapport technique (2004), 13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Daniel Delling and Dorothea Wagner. 2009. Time-Dependent Route Planning. In Robust and Online Large-Scale Optimization: Models and Techniques for Transportation Systems, Ravindra K. Ahuja, Rolf H. Möhring, and Christos D. Zaroliagis (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 207--230. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-05465-5_8Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Yvan Dumas, Jacques Desrosiers, Eric Gelinas, and Marius M. Solomon. 1995. An Optimal Algorithm for the Traveling Salesman Problem with Time Windows. Operations Research 43, 2 (April 1995), 367--371. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.43.2.367Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Pierre-Francois Dutot, Alexandre Laugier, and Anne-Marie Bustos. 2016. Technicians and Interventions Scheduling for Telecommunications. (2016), 7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. F. Errico, G. Desaulniers, M. Gendreau, W. Rei, and L.-M. Rousseau. 2016. The Vehicle Routing Problem with Hard Time Windows and Stochastic Service Times. EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics (Nov. 2016), 1--29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13676-016-0101-4Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Luca Foschini, John Hershberger, and Subhash Suri. 2014. On the Complexity of Time-Dependent Shortest Paths. Algorithmica 68, 4 (April 2014), 1075--1097. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00453-012-9714-7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Robert Geisberger. 2010. Engineering Time-Dependent One-To-All Computation. arXiv:1010.0809 [cs] (Oct. 2010). arXiv:cs/1010.0809Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Robert Geisberger, Peter Sanders, Dominik Schultes, and Daniel Delling. 2008. Contraction Hierarchies: Faster and Simpler Hierarchical Routing in Road Networks. In Experimental Algorithms, Catherine C. McGeoch (Ed.). Vol. 5038. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 319--333. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68552-4_24Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Edward He, Natashia Boland, George Nemhauser, and Martin Savelsbergh. 2019. Computational Complexity of Time-Dependent Shortest Path Problems. Optimization Online (Feb. 2019), 12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Keld Helsgaun. 2017. An Extension of the Lin-Kernighan-Helsgaun TSP Solver for Constrained Traveling Salesman and Vehicle Routing Problems. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25569.40807Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Attila A. Kovacs, Sophie N. Parragh, Karl F. Doerner, and Richard F. Hartl. 2012. Adaptive Large Neighborhood Search for Service Technician Routing and Scheduling Problems. Journal of Scheduling 15, 5 (Oct. 2012), 579--600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10951-011-0246-9Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Chryssi Malandraki and Mark S. Daskin. 1992. Time Dependent Vehicle Routing Problems: Formulations, Properties and Heuristic Algorithms. Transportation Science 26, 3 (Aug. 1992), 185--200. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.26.3.185Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Douglas Moura Miranda and Samuel Vieira Conceição. 2016. The Vehicle Routing Problem with Hard Time Windows and Stochastic Travel and Service Time. Expert Systems with Applications 64 (Dec. 2016), 104--116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2016.07.022Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. V. Pillac, C. Guéret, and A. L. Medaglia. 2013. A Parallel Matheuristic for the Technician Routing and Scheduling Problem. Optimization Letters 7, 7 (Oct. 2013), 1525--1535. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11590-012-0567-4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. David Pisinger and Stefan Ropke. 2007. A General Heuristic for Vehicle Routing Problems. Computers & Operations Research 34, 8 (Aug. 2007), 2403--2435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2005.09.012Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Marius M. Solomon and Jacques Desrosiers. 1988. Survey Paper---Time Window Constrained Routing and Scheduling Problems. Transportation Science 22, 1 (Feb. 1988), 1--13. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.22.1.1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Duygu Taş, Nico Dellaert, Tom van Woensel, and Ton de Kok. 2013. Vehicle Routing Problem with Stochastic Travel Times Including Soft Time Windows and Service Costs. Computers & Operations Research 40, 1 (Jan. 2013), 214--224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2012.06.008Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Hamza Ben Ticha, Nabil Absi, Dominique Feillet, and Alain Quilliot. 2018. Vehicle Routing Problems with Road-Network Information: State of the Art. Networks 72, 3 (2018), 393--406. https://doi.org/10.1002/net.21808Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Don Weigel and Buyang Cao. 1999. Applying GIS and OR Techniques to Solve Sears Technician-Dispatching and Home Delivery Problems. Interfaces 29 (1999), 112--130. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.29.1.112Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Multi-Itinerary Optimization as Cloud Service (Industrial Paper)

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          SIGSPATIAL '19: Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems
          November 2019
          648 pages

          Copyright © 2019 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 5 November 2019

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          SIGSPATIAL '19 Paper Acceptance Rate34of161submissions,21%Overall Acceptance Rate220of1,116submissions,20%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader