skip to main content
10.1145/3205455.3205538acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgeccoConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A merge search algorithm and its application to the constrained pit problem in mining

Published:02 July 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Many large-scale combinatorial problems contain too many variables and constraints for conventional mixed-integer programming (MIP) solvers to manage. To make the problems easier for the solvers to handle, various meta-heuristic techniques can be applied to reduce the size of the search space, by removing, or aggregating, variables and constraints. A novel meta-heuristic technique is presented in this paper called merge search, which takes an initial solution and uses the information from a large population of neighbouring solutions to determine promising areas of the search space to focus on. The population is merged to produce a restricted sub-problem, with far fewer variables and constraints, which can then be solved by a MIP solver. Merge search is applied to a complex problem from open-pit mining called the constrained pit (CPIT) problem, and compared to current state-of-the-art results on well known benchmark problems minelib [7] and is shown to give better quality solutions in five of the six instances.

References

  1. Jacques F Benders. 1962. Partitioning procedures for solving mixed-variables programming problems. Numerische mathematik 4, 1 (1962), 238--252. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Daniel Bienstock and Mark Zuckerberg. 2010. Solving LP Relaxations of Large-Scale Precedence Constrained Problems. In Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization, Friedrich Eisenbrand and F. Bruce Shepherd (Eds.). Number 6080 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Christian Blum, Pedro Pinacho, Manuel Lopez-Ibanez, and Jose A. Lozano. 2016. Construct, Merge, Solve & Adapt A new general algorithm for combinatorial optimization. Computers & Operations Research 68 (2016), 75 -- 88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Barbara Chapman, Gabriele Jost, and Ruud Van Der Pas. 2008. Using OpenMP: portable shared memory parallel programming. Vol. 10. MIT press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Renaud Chicoisne, Daniel Espinoza, Marcos Goycoolea, Eduardo Moreno, and Enrique Rubio. 2012. A new algorithm for the open-pit mine production scheduling problem. Operations Research 60, 3 (2012), 517--528. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Jacques Desrosiers and Marco E. Lübbecke. 2005. A Primer in Column Generation. Springer US, Boston, MA, 1--32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Daniel Espinoza, Marcos Goycoolea, Eduardo Moreno, and Alexandra N. Newman. 2012. Minelib: A Library of Open Pit Mining Problems. Annals of Operations Research 206(1) (2012), 91--114. http://mansci-web.uai.cl/minelib/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Dorit S. Hochbaum and Anna Chen. 2000. Performance Analysis and Best Implementations of Old and New Algorithms for the Open-Pit Mining Problem. Operations Research 48, 6 (Dec. 2000), 894--914. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Enrique Jélvez, Nelson Morales, Pierre Nancel-Penard, Juan Peypouquet, and Patricio Reyes. 2016. Aggregation heuristic for the open-pit block scheduling problem. European Journal of Operational Research 249, 3 (2016), 1169--1177.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Angus Kenny, Xiaodong Li, Andreas T. Ernst, and Dhananjay Thiruvady. 2017. Towards Solving Large-scale Precedence Constrained Production Scheduling Problems in Mining. In Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO '17). ACM, 1137--1144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Scott Kirkpatrick, C Daniel Gelatt, and Mario P Vecchi. 1983. Optimization by simulated annealing, science 220, 4598 (1983), 671--680.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. C. Meagher, R. Dimitrakopoulos, and D. Avis. 2014. Optimized open pit mine design, pushbacks and the gap problem-a review. Journal of Mining Science 50, 3 (May 2014), 508--526.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Gonzalo Ignacio Muñoz Martínez. 2012. Modelos de optimización lineal entera y aplicaciones a la minería. (2012).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Napoleão Nepomuceno, Plácido Pinheiro, and André L. V. Coelho. 2008. A Hybrid Optimization Framework for Cutting and Packing Problems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 87--99.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Jean-Claude Picard. 1976. Maximal closure of a graph and applications to combinatorial problems. Management science 22, 11 (1976), 1268--1272. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Franz Rothlauf. 2011. Optimization Problems. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 7--44.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. E-G Talbi. 2002. A taxonomy of hybrid metaheuristics. Journal of heuristics 8, 5 (2002), 541--564. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Dhananjay Thiruvady, Davaatseren Baatar, Andreas T. Ernst, Angus Kenny, Mohan Krishnamoorthy, and Gaurav Singh. 2018. Mixed Integer Programming Based Merge Search for Open Pit Block Scheduling. Computers & Operations Research (under review) (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A merge search algorithm and its application to the constrained pit problem in mining

      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
        GECCO '18: Proceedings of the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
        July 2018
        1578 pages
        ISBN:9781450356183
        DOI:10.1145/3205455

        Copyright © 2018 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: 2 July 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate1,669of4,410submissions,38%

        Upcoming Conference

        GECCO '24
        Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference
        July 14 - 18, 2024
        Melbourne , VIC , Australia

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader