Closed YevheniiSemendiak closed 4 years ago
I have modified those operators in order to use them while solving the TSP problem. If you consider such a fix as possible, I would be glad to submit a PR (after fixing related tests).
Hi. I would be great.
Thanks,
Antonio
Hey @ajnebro,
I have updated the tests, but can not find the develop
branch in repository (seems like it was deleted after the latest release in #79) therefore, I cannot submit a PR properly.
Could you assist?
Thanks!
My bad, @YevheniiSemendiak I have just restored the develop
branch.
Thank you.
Hello everyone!
I have found out that Operators for permutation Problems (TSP) impose assumption about different 'depth' of Configuration variables.
More concretely,
CXCrossover
andScrambleMutation
operate on configuration variables as it is a nested list (e.g.configuration.variables == [[1,2,3], [1,2,3], ... [1,2,3]]
).In other hand,
PermutationSwapMutation
,PMXCrossover
work with configuration.variables as with 'flat lists' (or, just on top level of nested lists).As the result, it is impossible to use CXCrossover and ScrambleMutation with TSP problem:![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/32543098/72579891-b6da3080-38da-11ea-9699-a1583beaa129.png)
Is it a bug in implementation, or the intent of these Operators is different?
P.S. Thank you for your framework, I do really like the architecture and code style :+1: