Hybridizing Beam Search with Tabu Search for the Irregular Packing Problem
Table 3
BSTS algorithm results compared with the average results of SAHA.
Problem
Average results of SAHA
Average results of BSTS
Length
Avg. (%)
Time (s)
BW/FW
Length
Avg. (%)
Time (s)
Fu
32.70
87.15
296
100/12
32.99
86.38
282
Jakobs1
12.93
75.80
332
100/20
11.98
81.87
639
Jakobs2
25.86
74.62
454
100/20
25.84
74.66
777
Shapes0
63.15
63.18
3914
10/4
66.11
60.38
363
Shapes1
58.17
68.59
10314
10/4
60.14
65.26
557
Shapes2
26.53
81.41
2257
100/7
28.48
75.82
401
Dighe1
122
81.97
83
10/5
125.66
79.48
185
Dighe2
119.53
83.66
22
10/5
121.12
82.56
92
Albano
10280.1
84.68
2257
100/8
10443.1
83.37
926
Dagli
59.41
85.36
5110
100/10
62.37
80.93
413
Mao
1842.70
79.99
8245
100/9
1839.4
80.12
759
Marques
79.63
86.87
7507
100/8
79.94
86.40
591
Swim
6121.39
72.27
6937
100/10
6369.1
69.46
855
Trousers
244.68
89.01
8588
100/10
252.07
86.41
641
Compared with the average results of SAHA, the better results obtained by the hybrid algorithm BSTS are highlighted by bold. Less than 1% worse results are italicized, and this also shows that the BSTS algorithm can produce some comparable results. The bold and italicized values can display the advantage of the BSTS algorithm more clearly.
