**Grasp and Path Relinking to Solve the Problem of Selecting Efficient Work Teams**

Fernando Sandoya and Ricardo Aceves

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/53700

## **1. Introduction**

[15] W. S. Chang and C. C. Chyu, "A Multi-Criteria Decision Making for the Unrelated Parallel Machines Scheduling Problem", Journal Software Engineering & Applica‐

[16] I. S. Franco, "Algoritmos híbridos para a resolução do problema de job shop flexível (in portuguese)", Master Thesis. Universidade Candido Mendes, Campos dos Goyt‐

[17] K. Deb, A. Pratap, S. Agarwal and T. Meyarivan, "A Fast and Elitist Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA II", IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, V. 6,

[18] M. Köksalan, J. Wallenius and S. Zionts, Multiple Criteria Decision Making: From

[19] J. E. C. Arroyo, "Heurísticas e Metaheurísticas para Otimização Combinatória Multi‐

[20] A. S. Pitombeira-Neto, "Modelo híbrido de otimização multiobjetivo para formação de células de manufatura (in portuguese)", PhD Thesis, USP-São Carlos, SP - Brazil,

[21] H. Zhang and M. Gen, Effective Genetic Approach for Optimizing Advanced Plan‐

[22] Y. Li and Y. Chen, "A Genetic Algorithm for Job-Shop Scheduling", Journal Of Soft‐

[23] A. Okamoto, M. Gen and M. Sugawara, "Robust Scheduling for APS using Multob‐ jective Hybrid Genetic Algorithm", in proceedings of Asia Pacific Industrial Engi‐

[24] Z. Michalewicz, Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Programs, Spring‐

[25] L. M. C. Dias, L. M. A. T. Almeida and J. Clímaco, Apoio multicritério à decisão (in

[26] TECMARAM, "Soluções para o gerenciamento de sistemas de produção (in portu‐ guese", [Online]. Available: http://www.tecmaran.com.br. [Acessed at 04/08/2012].

[27] M. R. Garey and D. S. Johnson, Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory

[28] M. R. R. Olazar, "Algoritmos Evolucionários Multiobjetivo para Alinhamento Múlti‐ plo de Sequências Biológicas (in portuguese)", PhD Thesis, UFRJ, RJ - Brazil, 2007.

neering and Management Systems Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 2006.

portuguese), Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra, 1996.

of NP-completeness, San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1979.

Early History to the 21st Century, Singapore: World Scientific, 2011.

objetivo (in portuguese)", PhD Thesis, UNICAMP, SP - Brazil, 2003.

ning and Scheduling in Flexible Manufacturing System, Seatle, 2006.

tions, pp. 323-329, 2009.

24 Recent Advances on Meta-Heuristics and Their Application to Real Scenarios

cazes, RJ - Brazil, 2010.

2011.

er, 1998.

N. 2, pp. 182-197, April 2002.

ware, V. 5, pp. 269-274, 2010.

The process of selecting objects, activities, people, projects, resources, etc. is one of the activi‐ ties that is frequently realized by human beings with some objective, and based on one or more criteria: economical, space, emotional, political, etc. For example, as a daily experience people should select what means of transportation and routes to utilize to arrive at a deter‐ mined destination according to the price, duration of the trip, etc. In these cases, one must select the best subset of elements based on a large set of possibilities, the best in some sense, and in many cases there is an interest in the selected elements not appearing amongst them‐ selves, if not it is better that they have different characteristics so that they can represent the existing diversity in the collection of original possibilities. Of course at this level people make these decisions intuitively, but commonsense, generally, is not a good advisor with problems that require optimized decision-making, and simple procedures that apparently offer effective solutions lead to bad decisions, thus this can be avoided by applying mathe‐ matical models that can guarantee obtainable effective solutions. In other human activities the selection of this subset has economic implications that involve a selection of a more di‐ verse subset, a crucial decision, and difficult to obtain, which requires a correct process of optimization guided by a methodical form.

In the Operations Research literature, the maximum diversity problem (MDP) can be formu‐ lated by the following manner: If *V* ={1, 2, ⋯, *n*} is the original set, and *M* is the selected subset, *M* ⊂*V* , the search for optimizing the objective is as follows:

$$\text{Max } f\_1(M) = \text{div}(M) \tag{1}$$

In the equation (1) the objective function *div*(*M* ) represents the measurement that has been made of the diversity in the subset selected. There are some existing models to achieve this goal, as well as a number of practical applications, as reported in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; in particular, we target the Max-Mean dispersion model in which the average distance between the select‐ ed elements is maximized, this way not only is there a search for the maximization of diver‐ sity, if not also the equitable selected set, also, the number of elements selected are as well a decision variable, as mentioned in [6].

**2. Distances, similarities, and diversity**

element *i*, then, for example, utilizing the Euclidian distance:

frame of work of this investigation: the measurements of similarities

*dij* =

the exact opposite of the similarities.

Similarities are understood to be a resemblance between people and things. Although it is common to accept that diversity is an opposite concept of similarities, both terms perform within different structures, since similarities are a local function for each pair of elements. In contrast, diversity is a characteristic associated to a set of elements, which is calculated with the function of the dissimilarities within all the possible pairings. Where dissimilarities are

Grasp and Path Relinking to Solve the Problem of Selecting Efficient Work Teams

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/53700

27

To be even more specific, to measure the diversity in *M* , *div*(*M* ) , it is required to first have a clear definition of the connection, distance, or dissimilarity between each pair *i*, *j* ∈*M* . The estimation of this distance depends on the concrete problem that is being analyzed, in par‐ ticular in complex systems like social groups a fundamental operation is the assessment of the similarities between each individual pair. Many measurements of the similarities that are proposed in the literature, in many cases show similarities that are assessed as a distance in some space with adequate characteristics, generally in a metric space, as for example the Euclidian distance. In the majority of applications each element is supposed to able to be represented by a collection of attributes, and defining *xik* as the value of the attribute *k* of the

Under this model, *d*, satisfies the axioms of a metric, although the empirical observation of attractions and differences between individuals forces abandoning these axioms, since they obligate an unnecessary rigid system with properties that can not adapt adequately the

In the literature, one can find the different measurements of similarities that can be applied to groups of people. For example, in [11] it is established that "the measurements of similari‐ ties of the cosine is a popular measurement of the similarities". On the other hand, in [10] it is established that the measurement of dissimilarities to treat the problem of the relation be‐ tween the diversity and the productivity of groups of people can be established to solve problems. These measurements are developed in section 1.2. In [6] a similar measurement is

Given two individuals *i*, *j* with the characteristics *xi* =(*xi*1, *xi*2, …, *xip*), *x <sup>j</sup>* =(*x <sup>j</sup>*1, *x <sup>j</sup>*2, …, *x jp*) is defined by the measurement of similarities of the Cosine like:

(2)

∑ *k* =1 *p xik x jk*

∑ *k* =1 *p xik* <sup>2</sup> ∑ *k* =1 *p x jk* 2

**2.1. Definitions**

*dij* = ∑ *k*

(*xik* - *x jk* )<sup>2</sup>

utilized to solve a real case.

**2.2. Similarity measurements**

Traditionally the MDP has permitted the resolution of concrete problems of great interest, for example: the localization of mutually competitive logistic facilities, for illustration see [3], composition of the panels of judges, [7], location of dangerous facilities, [1], new drugs design [8], formulation of immigration policies and admissions [9].

In the past, a great part of the public's interest in diversity was centered around themes such as justice and representation. On the other hand, lately there has been a growing interest in the exploitation of the benefits of diversity. Recently, in [6], it a potential case of the applica‐ tion of the selection of efficient work teams is mentioned. In practice, there are many exam‐ ples when the diversity in a group enhances the group's ability to solve problems, and thus, leads to more efficient teams, firms, schools. For this reason, efforts have begun on behalf of the investigators to identify how to take advantage of the diversity in human organizations, beginning with the role played by the diversity in groups of people, for example in [10], Page *et al*. introduces a general work plan showing a model of the functionality of the prob‐ lem solving done by diverse groups. In this scenario, it is determined that the experts in solving problems possess different forms of presenting the problem and their own algo‐ rithms that they utilize to find their solutions. This focus can be used to establish a relative result in the composition of an efficient team within a company. In the study it is deter‐ mined that in the selection of a team to solve problems based in a population of intelligent agents, a team of selected agents at random surpasses a team composed by the best suited agents. This result is based on the intuition that when an initial group of problem solvers becomes larger, the agents of a greater capability will arrive to a similar conclusion, getting stuck in local optimum, and its greater individual capacity is more than uncompensated by the lack of diversity.

This chapter is organized in the following manner, beginning with the Section 2 study of concepts relating to diversity, and how it can be measured. Later on, in Section 4 we are in‐ troduced to the classic Maximum Diversity Problem, with differing variants, and the new problem Max-Mean, with which we attempted to resolve the first objective described by the equation (1), also revised are the formulations of the mathematical programming for these problems, and its properties are explored. In Section 5 an algorithm is developed based on GRASP with path relinking in which the local search is developed mainly with the method‐ ology based on Variable neighborhood search, in Section 4 there is a documented extensive computerized experimentation.

## **2. Distances, similarities, and diversity**

## **2.1. Definitions**

In the equation (1) the objective function *div*(*M* ) represents the measurement that has been made of the diversity in the subset selected. There are some existing models to achieve this goal, as well as a number of practical applications, as reported in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; in particular, we target the Max-Mean dispersion model in which the average distance between the select‐ ed elements is maximized, this way not only is there a search for the maximization of diver‐ sity, if not also the equitable selected set, also, the number of elements selected are as well a

Traditionally the MDP has permitted the resolution of concrete problems of great interest, for example: the localization of mutually competitive logistic facilities, for illustration see [3], composition of the panels of judges, [7], location of dangerous facilities, [1], new drugs

In the past, a great part of the public's interest in diversity was centered around themes such as justice and representation. On the other hand, lately there has been a growing interest in the exploitation of the benefits of diversity. Recently, in [6], it a potential case of the applica‐ tion of the selection of efficient work teams is mentioned. In practice, there are many exam‐ ples when the diversity in a group enhances the group's ability to solve problems, and thus, leads to more efficient teams, firms, schools. For this reason, efforts have begun on behalf of the investigators to identify how to take advantage of the diversity in human organizations, beginning with the role played by the diversity in groups of people, for example in [10], Page *et al*. introduces a general work plan showing a model of the functionality of the prob‐ lem solving done by diverse groups. In this scenario, it is determined that the experts in solving problems possess different forms of presenting the problem and their own algo‐ rithms that they utilize to find their solutions. This focus can be used to establish a relative result in the composition of an efficient team within a company. In the study it is deter‐ mined that in the selection of a team to solve problems based in a population of intelligent agents, a team of selected agents at random surpasses a team composed by the best suited agents. This result is based on the intuition that when an initial group of problem solvers becomes larger, the agents of a greater capability will arrive to a similar conclusion, getting stuck in local optimum, and its greater individual capacity is more than uncompensated by

This chapter is organized in the following manner, beginning with the Section 2 study of concepts relating to diversity, and how it can be measured. Later on, in Section 4 we are in‐ troduced to the classic Maximum Diversity Problem, with differing variants, and the new problem Max-Mean, with which we attempted to resolve the first objective described by the equation (1), also revised are the formulations of the mathematical programming for these problems, and its properties are explored. In Section 5 an algorithm is developed based on GRASP with path relinking in which the local search is developed mainly with the method‐ ology based on Variable neighborhood search, in Section 4 there is a documented extensive

design [8], formulation of immigration policies and admissions [9].

26 Recent Advances on Meta-Heuristics and Their Application to Real Scenarios

decision variable, as mentioned in [6].

the lack of diversity.

computerized experimentation.

Similarities are understood to be a resemblance between people and things. Although it is common to accept that diversity is an opposite concept of similarities, both terms perform within different structures, since similarities are a local function for each pair of elements. In contrast, diversity is a characteristic associated to a set of elements, which is calculated with the function of the dissimilarities within all the possible pairings. Where dissimilarities are the exact opposite of the similarities.

To be even more specific, to measure the diversity in *M* , *div*(*M* ) , it is required to first have a clear definition of the connection, distance, or dissimilarity between each pair *i*, *j* ∈*M* . The estimation of this distance depends on the concrete problem that is being analyzed, in par‐ ticular in complex systems like social groups a fundamental operation is the assessment of the similarities between each individual pair. Many measurements of the similarities that are proposed in the literature, in many cases show similarities that are assessed as a distance in some space with adequate characteristics, generally in a metric space, as for example the Euclidian distance. In the majority of applications each element is supposed to able to be represented by a collection of attributes, and defining *xik* as the value of the attribute *k* of the element *i*, then, for example, utilizing the Euclidian distance:

$$d\_{ij} = \sqrt{\sum\_{k} (\mathbf{x}\_{ik} - \mathbf{x}\_{jk})^2}$$

Under this model, *d*, satisfies the axioms of a metric, although the empirical observation of attractions and differences between individuals forces abandoning these axioms, since they obligate an unnecessary rigid system with properties that can not adapt adequately the frame of work of this investigation: the measurements of similarities

In the literature, one can find the different measurements of similarities that can be applied to groups of people. For example, in [11] it is established that "the measurements of similari‐ ties of the cosine is a popular measurement of the similarities". On the other hand, in [10] it is established that the measurement of dissimilarities to treat the problem of the relation be‐ tween the diversity and the productivity of groups of people can be established to solve problems. These measurements are developed in section 1.2. In [6] a similar measurement is utilized to solve a real case.

#### **2.2. Similarity measurements**

Given two individuals *i*, *j* with the characteristics *xi* =(*xi*1, *xi*2, …, *xip*), *x <sup>j</sup>* =(*x <sup>j</sup>*1, *x <sup>j</sup>*2, …, *x jp*) is defined by the measurement of similarities of the Cosine like:

$$d\_{ij} = \frac{\sum\_{k=1}^{\mathbb{E}} x\_{ik} x\_{jk}}{\sqrt{\sum\_{k=1}^{\mathbb{E}} x\_{ik}^2} \sqrt{\sum\_{k=1}^{\mathbb{E}} x\_{jk}}^2} \tag{2}$$

On the other hand, in [10] the authors explain the problem with how diversity presents a group can increase the efficiency to solve problems, in particular in its investigation that au‐ thors use the following measurement of dissimilarities:

$$\mathcal{A}\_{ij} = \frac{\sum\_{l=1}^{k} \delta(x\_{il} \mid x\_{jl})}{p} \tag{3}$$

**2.5. The measurement of dispersion of the minimum distance**

**2.6. The measurement of the average dispersion**

within the context of the models of the dispersion equation.

**3. The maximum diversity problem**

imum Diversity Problem.

equation (5).

In this case of the diversity of a subset given the establishment of how the minimum of these types of dissimilarities between the pairs of elements of the set; this is to say, like in

*i*< *j*,*i*, *j*∈*M*

This type of measurement can be useful with contexts that can make very close undesirable

For a subset *M* , the average diversity is calculated by the expression of the equation (6)

∑ *i*< *j*,*i*, *j*∈*M dij*

Notice that this measurement of diversity is intimately associated with the measurement of the dispersion of the sum, that constitutes the numerator of the equation (6). In the literature lately some references have appeared in which the diversity is measured in this manner, for example in [13], in the context of systems Case-based reasoning, CBR, the authors defined the diversity of the subset of some cases, like the average dissimilarity between all the pairs of cases considered. So much so that in [6] diversity of a subset is defined by the equation (6)

Once determined how to resolve the sub problem of estimating the existence of diversity in a set, the following is establishing the problem of optimizing what to look for the deter‐ mined subset with maximum diversity. Such problem is named in the literature as The Max‐

The most studied model probably is the Problem in which it maximizes the sum of the dis‐ tances or dissimilarities between the elements selected, this is to say the maximum measure of diversity of the sum established in the equation (4). In the literature there is also the prob‐ lem also known with other denominations, as the Max-Sum problem [14], the Maximum Dispersion problem [15], Maximum Edge Weight Clique problem, [16], the Maximum edge-

Recently another model has been proposed in the context of equitative dispersion models [20], this model is denominated as the Maximum Mean Dispersion Problem (Max-Mean), that is the problem of optimization that consists in maximizing the equation (6), and one of

weighted subgraph problem, [18], or the Dense *k*-subgraph problem, [19].

*dij* (5)

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/53700

29

Grasp and Path Relinking to Solve the Problem of Selecting Efficient Work Teams

<sup>|</sup>*<sup>M</sup>* <sup>|</sup> (6)

*div*(*M* )= min

elements, and thereby having a minimum distance that is great is important.

*div*(*M* )=

Where:

$$\delta(\boldsymbol{\alpha}\_{il'} \mid \boldsymbol{\alpha}\_{jl}) = \begin{vmatrix} & -1 & \operatorname{si } \boldsymbol{\alpha}\_{il} = \boldsymbol{\alpha}\_{jl} \\ \mid \boldsymbol{\alpha}\_{il} = \boldsymbol{\alpha}\_{jl} \mid & \operatorname{si } \boldsymbol{\alpha}\_{il} \not\models \boldsymbol{\alpha}\_{jl} \end{vmatrix}$$

This measurement will take a negative value (in the case of similarities) and positives (in the case of dissimilarities). In general terms, we are referring to a *dij* as the dissimilarities or the distance between *i* and *j*.

#### **2.3. Equity, diversity, and dispersion**

The growing interest in the treatment of diversity also has originated in an effort to study the management of fairness, that is to say that all the practices and processes utilized in the organizations to guarantee a just and fair treatment of individuals and institutions. Speaking in general terms, the fair treatment is that which has or has exhibited fairness, being terms that are synonyms: just, objective, or impartial. Many authors, like French, in [12] the argu‐ ment is that equality has to do with justice, for example the distribution of resources or of installations or public service infrastructures, and in the same manner the achievement of equality in diversity has been identified within as a problem of selection and distribution. Synthesized, one can say that the equality represents an argument concerning the willing‐ ness for justice, understanding this as a complicated pattern of decisions, actions, and results in which each element engages as a member of the subset given.

The other sub problem that should be resolved is how to measure diversity. Given a set *V* ={1, 2, ⋯, *n*}, and a measure of dissimilarity *dij* defined between every pair of ele‐ ments of *V* , and a subset *M* ⊂*V* , different forms have been established as their measure of diversity.

#### **2.4. The measure of dispersion of the sum**

With this calculated measurement of diversity and a subset as the sum of the dissimilarities between all the pairs of their elements; this is to say, the diversity of a subset *M* is calculated with the equation (4):

$$\operatorname{div}(\mathcal{M}) = \sum\_{i < j, i, j \in \mathcal{M}} d\_{ij} \tag{4}$$

#### **2.5. The measurement of dispersion of the minimum distance**

On the other hand, in [10] the authors explain the problem with how diversity presents a group can increase the efficiency to solve problems, in particular in its investigation that au‐

This measurement will take a negative value (in the case of similarities) and positives (in the case of dissimilarities). In general terms, we are referring to a *dij* as the dissimilarities or the

The growing interest in the treatment of diversity also has originated in an effort to study the management of fairness, that is to say that all the practices and processes utilized in the organizations to guarantee a just and fair treatment of individuals and institutions. Speaking in general terms, the fair treatment is that which has or has exhibited fairness, being terms that are synonyms: just, objective, or impartial. Many authors, like French, in [12] the argu‐ ment is that equality has to do with justice, for example the distribution of resources or of installations or public service infrastructures, and in the same manner the achievement of equality in diversity has been identified within as a problem of selection and distribution. Synthesized, one can say that the equality represents an argument concerning the willing‐ ness for justice, understanding this as a complicated pattern of decisions, actions, and results

The other sub problem that should be resolved is how to measure diversity. Given a set *V* ={1, 2, ⋯, *n*}, and a measure of dissimilarity *dij* defined between every pair of ele‐ ments of *V* , and a subset *M* ⊂*V* , different forms have been established as their measure

With this calculated measurement of diversity and a subset as the sum of the dissimilarities between all the pairs of their elements; this is to say, the diversity of a subset *M* is calculated

*i*< *j*,*i*, *j*∈*M*

*dij* (4)

*div*(*M* )= ∑

(3)

*dij* = ∑ *l*=1 *p δ*(*xil* , *x jl*) *p*

in which each element engages as a member of the subset given.

thors use the following measurement of dissimilarities:

28 Recent Advances on Meta-Heuristics and Their Application to Real Scenarios

, *<sup>x</sup> jl*) ={ -1 *si xil* <sup>=</sup> *<sup>x</sup> jl* |*xil* - *x jl*| *si xil* ≠ *x jl*

**2.3. Equity, diversity, and dispersion**

**2.4. The measure of dispersion of the sum**

distance between *i* and *j*.

of diversity.

with the equation (4):

Where:

*δ*(*xil*

In this case of the diversity of a subset given the establishment of how the minimum of these types of dissimilarities between the pairs of elements of the set; this is to say, like in equation (5).

$$\operatorname{div}(M) = \min\_{i \prec\_{\downarrow} \langle i, \downarrow \rangle \in \mathcal{M}} d\_{i\uparrow} \tag{5}$$

This type of measurement can be useful with contexts that can make very close undesirable elements, and thereby having a minimum distance that is great is important.

#### **2.6. The measurement of the average dispersion**

For a subset *M* , the average diversity is calculated by the expression of the equation (6)

$$div(\mathcal{M}) = \frac{\sum\_{\substack{\sum\_{i \in \mathcal{M}} d\_{\vec{\eta}} \\ \parallel \mathcal{M} \parallel}} d\_{\vec{\eta}}}{^{\perp}} \tag{6}$$

Notice that this measurement of diversity is intimately associated with the measurement of the dispersion of the sum, that constitutes the numerator of the equation (6). In the literature lately some references have appeared in which the diversity is measured in this manner, for example in [13], in the context of systems Case-based reasoning, CBR, the authors defined the diversity of the subset of some cases, like the average dissimilarity between all the pairs of cases considered. So much so that in [6] diversity of a subset is defined by the equation (6) within the context of the models of the dispersion equation.

## **3. The maximum diversity problem**

Once determined how to resolve the sub problem of estimating the existence of diversity in a set, the following is establishing the problem of optimizing what to look for the deter‐ mined subset with maximum diversity. Such problem is named in the literature as The Max‐ imum Diversity Problem.

The most studied model probably is the Problem in which it maximizes the sum of the dis‐ tances or dissimilarities between the elements selected, this is to say the maximum measure of diversity of the sum established in the equation (4). In the literature there is also the prob‐ lem also known with other denominations, as the Max-Sum problem [14], the Maximum Dispersion problem [15], Maximum Edge Weight Clique problem, [16], the Maximum edgeweighted subgraph problem, [18], or the Dense *k*-subgraph problem, [19].

Recently another model has been proposed in the context of equitative dispersion models [20], this model is denominated as the Maximum Mean Dispersion Problem (Max-Mean), that is the problem of optimization that consists in maximizing the equation (6), and one of the principal characteristics, that makes is different than the rest of the models of diversity, being that the number of elements selected also is a decision variable.

#### **3.1. Formulations & mathematical programming models**

Given a set *V* ={1, 2, ⋯, *n*}, and the dissimilarity relation *dij* , the problem is selecting a subset *M* ⊂*V* , of cardinality *m*<*n*, of maximum diversity:

$$\max\_{M \subset V} f\_1(M) = \text{div}(M) \tag{7}$$

max ∑ *i*=1 *n*-1 ∑ *j*=*i*+1 *n dij xi x <sup>j</sup>*

tions (14) to (19):

*s*.*t*. ∑ *i*=1 *n*

max ∑ *i*=1 *n*-1 ∑ *j*=*i*+1 *n dij*

; *zij* ≤ *y*; *zij* ≤ *xi*

∑ *i*=1 *n*

∑ *i*=1 *n*

Notice that the Max-Mean problem cannot be resolved applying a solution method for any of the other problems, unless applied repeatedly for all the possible values of *m*=|*M* |;*m*=2, 3, …, *n*. Surprisingly, as seen in Section 4, to find the solution of the Max-Mean problem with exact methods through resolving (*n* - 1) Max-Sum problems requires

This is known as the Max-Sum problem it is strongly NP-hard, as demonstrated in [9]. Re‐ cently, it has also been demonstrated in [20] that the Max-Mean problem is strongly NPhard if the measurements of dissimilarities take a positive value and negative. Here the

; *zi* ≤ *y*; *zi* ≤ *xi*

; *zij* ≤ *x <sup>j</sup>*

*s*.*t*. *y* - *zi* ≤1 - *xi*

much less time that resolves directly the formulation (14)-(19).

**3.4. Computational complexity**

*y* - *zij* ≤2 - *xi* - *x <sup>j</sup>*

∑ *i*=1 *n xi*

In this problem the objective function (11) is the average of the sum of the distances between the selected elements, the constraint (12) indicates that at least two elements should be se‐ lected. Just as presented in [20], this is a fractional binary optimization problem, but can be linearized utilizing new binary variables, this way the problem is formulated for the equa‐

(11)

31

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/53700

*xi* ≥2 (12)

*zij* (14)

; *zi* ≥0; 1≤*i* ≤*n* (15)

; *zij* ≥0; 1≤*i* < *j* ≤*n* (16)

*xi* ≥2 (17)

*zi* =1 (18)

*xi* ∈{0,1}; 1≤*i* ≤*n* (19)

*xi* ∈{0,1}, 1≤*i* ≤*n* (13)

Grasp and Path Relinking to Solve the Problem of Selecting Efficient Work Teams

The manner in which diversity is measured in the equation (7) permits constructing the for‐ mulations of the different maximum diversity problems.

#### **3.2. The Max-Sum problem**

The Max-Sum problem consists in selecting the subset that has the maximum diversity, measuring the agreement of the equation (4):

max *M* ⊂*V* , |*M* |=*m* ∑ *i*< *j*,*i*, *j*∈*M dij* Introducing the binary variables: *xi* ={ 1 if element *i* is selected <sup>0</sup> otherwise ;1≤*<sup>i</sup>* <sup>≤</sup>*<sup>n</sup>*

Therefore, this problem can be formulated as a problem of quadratic binary programming:

$$\mathbf{max} \quad \sum\_{i=1}^{n-1} \sum\_{j=i+1}^{n} d\_{ij} \mathbf{x}\_i \mathbf{x}\_j \tag{8}$$

$$\text{s.t.} \quad \sum\_{i=1}^{n} \mathbf{x}\_i = m \tag{9}$$

$$\mathbf{x}\_{i}\in\{0,1\};\ 1\le i\le n\tag{10}$$

#### **3.3. The Max-Mean problem**

This problem can be described as:

$$\max\_{\substack{\mathbf{m}\mathbf{a}\mathbf{x} \\ M\subset V,\ \lVert M\rVert \ge 2}} \frac{\sum\_{\substack{\sum \ d\_{\vec{\eta}}}} d\_{\vec{\eta}}}{^{\lVert \mathcal{M} \rVert}}$$

Generically speaking, this problem deals with the maximization of the average diversity. A formulation of the mathematical programming with the binary variables is then:

Grasp and Path Relinking to Solve the Problem of Selecting Efficient Work Teams http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/53700 31

$$\mathbf{\underline{\underline{\mathbf{\varepsilon}}}} \mathbf{\underline{\mathbf{\underline{\mathbf{x}}}}} \xrightarrow[\sum\_{i=1}^{n}\mathbf{x}\_{i}]{\mathbf{\underline{\mathbf{\varepsilon}}}} d\_{ij} \mathbf{x}\_{i} \mathbf{x}\_{j}$$

$$\text{s.t. } \sum\_{i=1}^{n} x\_i \ge 2 \tag{12}$$

$$x\_i \in \{0, 1\}, \quad 1 \le i \le n \tag{13}$$

In this problem the objective function (11) is the average of the sum of the distances between the selected elements, the constraint (12) indicates that at least two elements should be se‐ lected. Just as presented in [20], this is a fractional binary optimization problem, but can be linearized utilizing new binary variables, this way the problem is formulated for the equa‐ tions (14) to (19):

$$\mathbf{\dot{x}} \mathbf{max} \quad \sum\_{i=1}^{n-1} \sum\_{j=i+1}^{n} d\_{ij} z\_{ij} \tag{14}$$

$$s.t. \quad y \text{ - } z\_i \le 1 \text{ - } x\_i; \quad z\_i \le y; \quad z\_i \le x\_i; \quad z\_i \ge 0; \text{ 1 } 1 \le i \le n \tag{15}$$

$$\{y \text{ - } z\_{i\text{j}} \le 2 \text{ - } x\_i \text{ - } x\_j \text{; } z\_{i\text{j}} \le y; \text{ - } z\_{i\text{j}} \le x\_i; \text{ } z\_{i\text{j}} \le x\_j; \text{ - } z\_{i\text{j}} \ge 0; \text{ 1 } \le i \le j \le n \tag{16}$$

$$\sum\_{i=1}^{n} x\_i \ge 2 \tag{17}$$

$$\sum\_{i=1}^{n} z\_i = 1\tag{18}$$

$$x\_i \in [0, 1]; \; 1 \le i \le n \tag{19}$$

Notice that the Max-Mean problem cannot be resolved applying a solution method for any of the other problems, unless applied repeatedly for all the possible values of *m*=|*M* |;*m*=2, 3, …, *n*. Surprisingly, as seen in Section 4, to find the solution of the Max-Mean problem with exact methods through resolving (*n* - 1) Max-Sum problems requires much less time that resolves directly the formulation (14)-(19).

#### **3.4. Computational complexity**

the principal characteristics, that makes is different than the rest of the models of diversity,

The manner in which diversity is measured in the equation (7) permits constructing the for‐

The Max-Sum problem consists in selecting the subset that has the maximum diversity,

Therefore, this problem can be formulated as a problem of quadratic binary programming:

Generically speaking, this problem deals with the maximization of the average diversity. A

formulation of the mathematical programming with the binary variables is then:

max ∑ *i*=1 *n*-1 ∑ *j*=*i*+1 *n*

> *s*.*t*. ∑ *i*=1 *n*

1 if element *i* is selected

<sup>0</sup> otherwise ;1≤*<sup>i</sup>* <sup>≤</sup>*<sup>n</sup>*

, the problem is selecting a

(*M* )=*div*(*M* ) (7)

*dijxix <sup>j</sup>* (8)

*xi* =*m* (9)

*xi* ∈{0,1}; 1≤*i* ≤*n* (10)

being that the number of elements selected also is a decision variable.

**3.1. Formulations & mathematical programming models**

30 Recent Advances on Meta-Heuristics and Their Application to Real Scenarios

subset *M* ⊂*V* , of cardinality *m*<*n*, of maximum diversity:

mulations of the different maximum diversity problems.

measuring the agreement of the equation (4):

**3.2. The Max-Sum problem**

∑ *i*< *j*,*i*, *j*∈*M*

**3.3. The Max-Mean problem**

∑ *i*< *j*,*i*, *j*∈*M dij* |*M* |

This problem can be described as:

*dij*

Introducing the binary variables: *xi* ={

max *M* ⊂*V* , |*M* |=*m*

max *M* ⊂*V* , |*M* |≥2

Given a set *V* ={1, 2, ⋯, *n*}, and the dissimilarity relation *dij*

max *M* ⊂*V f* 1

> This is known as the Max-Sum problem it is strongly NP-hard, as demonstrated in [9]. Re‐ cently, it has also been demonstrated in [20] that the Max-Mean problem is strongly NPhard if the measurements of dissimilarities take a positive value and negative. Here the

property 3 is demonstrated, this then indicates that if *dij* satisfying the properties of a metric, then the diversity *div*(*M* ) for any *M* ⊂*V* is always less than *div*(*M* ∪{*k*}) for any *k* ∉*M* , then, a solution with *m*<*n* elements cannot be optimal in the Max-Mean problem, from there the optimum of this case is selecting all the elements.

## **Property 1** [12]

The Max-Sum Problem is Strongly NP-hard.

## **Property 2 [6]:**

If the dissimilarity coefficients *dij* does not have restrictions in the sign, then the Max-Mean problem is strongly NP-hard.

## **Property 3:**

The Max-Mean problem has a trivial solution *M* =*V* , if the dissimilarity measure is a metric.

## *Proof:*

The Max-Mean problem consists in selecting a subset *M* such that *div*(*M* ) is maximized. Demonstrating that given the instance in which the dissimilarities are not negative, symmet‐ rical, and satisfy the triangular inequality, the solution to the Max-Mean problem is selecting all the elements, that is to say: *M* =*V* .

*i*∈*M*

*div*(*<sup>M</sup>* )= <sup>1</sup>

*ZMax*-*Mean \** <sup>=</sup> max

*m*∈{2,…,*n*}


*<sup>m</sup>* ∑ *i*, *j*∈*M i*< *j*

*dij* <

1 *<sup>m</sup>* <sup>+</sup> <sup>1</sup> <sup>∑</sup> *<sup>i</sup>*, *<sup>j</sup>*∈*<sup>M</sup>* <sup>∪</sup>{*k*} *i*< *j*

**4.1. Exact solution for the MIP formulation**

{ *ZMax*-*Sum*(*m*) *\* <sup>m</sup>* }

sonable times for medium or large problems.

to design an efficient GRASP algorithm.

This research takes into account two new types of test instances:

dom numbers in - 1,1 generated from a uniform distribution.

*dij* =*div*(*M* ∪{*k*})

It is evident that an optimal solution can be obtained for the Max-Mean problem in an indi‐ rect manner if resolving the Max-Sum model for all the possible values of *m*; meaning, for *m*=2, 3, …, *n*, and then dividing the remaining solutions for the corresponding value of *m*. Then, the best value of these (*n* - 1) values is the optimal Max-Mean model. Therefore, if *ZMax*-*Sum*(*m*) *\** is the optimal value of the objective function of the Max-Sum problem with *<sup>m</sup>*

Grasp and Path Relinking to Solve the Problem of Selecting Efficient Work Teams

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/53700

33

**•** Type I: This set contains 60 matrices of sizes: *n* =20, 25, 30, 35, 150 *and* 500 with ran‐

**•** Type II: There are also 60 symmetrical matrices, with *n* =20, 25, 30, 35, 150 *and* 500, but with coefficients that generate with random numbers with a uniform distribution in

These test instances are found as available in the web site of the project OPTSICOM, [21].

Figure 1 shows the result of the resolution of the Max-Mean problem in an indirect way, for the test instances of type I and type II, of size *n* =30, solving in an exact manner in each ex‐ ample 29 Max-Sum problems, each one of the cuadratic binary formulation (8)-(10). In this investigation, the Max-Sum problems are solved by the method of dynamic search using Cplex 12.4.0, the professional solver for mixed integer linear programming problems. Prog‐ ress in computer technology and in design of MIP efficient algorithms and their implemen‐ tation in Cplex 12.4.0 together with mathematical advance lead in some cases to satisfactory solution times. Unfortunately the MIP formulation described above cannot be solved in rea‐

Also, Figure 1 shows that the Max-Mean value of the Max-Sum solution increases as *m* in‐ creases from 2 to certain value, and then this value decreases in the rest of the range. We have observed the same pattern (approximately a concave function) in all the examples test‐ ed with positive and negative distances randomly generated. We will consider this pattern

selected elements, and *ZMax*-*Mean \** is the optimal value of the Max-Mean problem, then:

**4. An efficient method to solve the Max-Mean problem**

For all *i*, *j* ∈*M* and *k* ∉*M* the triangular inequality establishes that *dij* ≤*dik* + *d jk*

Adding over all the possible pairs of elements in *M* :

$$\sum\_{\substack{i,j \in \mathcal{M} \\ i$$

But the right side of the last expression is equivalent to (|*M* | - 1) times ∑ *dik* ,

If representing with *m*=|*M* |, then:

$$\sum\_{\substack{i,j \in M \\ i$$

Divided by *m* on has:

$$\frac{1}{m} \sum\_{i,j \in M} d\_{ij} \le \sum\_{i \in M} d\_{ik}$$

Adding the term ∑ *i*, *j*∈*M i*< *j dij* on both sides of the last inequality:

$$\frac{m+1}{m} \sum\_{\substack{i,j \in \mathcal{M} \\ i$$

Finally dividing for (*m* + 1) :

$$\operatorname{div}(\mathcal{M}) = \frac{1}{m} \sum\_{\substack{i,j \in \mathcal{M} \\ i$$

property 3 is demonstrated, this then indicates that if *dij* satisfying the properties of a metric, then the diversity *div*(*M* ) for any *M* ⊂*V* is always less than *div*(*M* ∪{*k*}) for any *k* ∉*M* , then, a solution with *m*<*n* elements cannot be optimal in the Max-Mean problem, from there the

The Max-Mean problem has a trivial solution *M* =*V* , if the dissimilarity measure is a metric.

The Max-Mean problem consists in selecting a subset *M* such that *div*(*M* ) is maximized. Demonstrating that given the instance in which the dissimilarities are not negative, symmet‐ rical, and satisfy the triangular inequality, the solution to the Max-Mean problem is selecting

For all *i*, *j* ∈*M* and *k* ∉*M* the triangular inequality establishes that *dij* ≤*dik* + *d jk*

But the right side of the last expression is equivalent to (|*M* | - 1) times ∑

*dik* <*m* ∑ *i*∈*M dik*

on both sides of the last inequality:

*dij*

*i*∈*M*

*dik* <sup>=</sup> <sup>∑</sup> *<sup>i</sup>*, *<sup>j</sup>*∈*<sup>M</sup>* <sup>∪</sup>{*k*} *i*< *j*

does not have restrictions in the sign, then the Max-Mean

*i*∈*M dik* ,

optimum of this case is selecting all the elements.

32 Recent Advances on Meta-Heuristics and Their Application to Real Scenarios

The Max-Sum Problem is Strongly NP-hard.

If the dissimilarity coefficients *dij*

all the elements, that is to say: *M* =*V* .

(*dik* + *d jk* )

If representing with *m*=|*M* |, then:

*i*, *j*∈*M i*< *j*

*dij* + ∑ *i*∈*M*

*dij*

(*dik* + *d jk* ) =(*m* - 1) ∑

Adding over all the possible pairs of elements in *M* :

problem is strongly NP-hard.

**Property 1** [12]

**Property 2 [6]:**

**Property 3:**

*Proof:*

∑ *i*, *j*∈*M i*< *j*

∑ *i*, *j*∈*M i*< *j*

> 1 *<sup>m</sup>* ∑ *i*, *j*∈*M i*< *j*

*m* + 1 *<sup>m</sup>* ∑ *i*, *j*∈*M i*< *j*

*dij* ≤ ∑ *i*, *j*∈*M i*< *j*

*dij* ≤ ∑ *i*, *j*∈*M i*< *j*

Divided by *m* on has:

*dij* < ∑ *i*∈*M dik*

Adding the term ∑

*dij* < ∑ *i*, *j*∈*M i*< *j*

Finally dividing for (*m* + 1) :

## **4. An efficient method to solve the Max-Mean problem**

#### **4.1. Exact solution for the MIP formulation**

It is evident that an optimal solution can be obtained for the Max-Mean problem in an indi‐ rect manner if resolving the Max-Sum model for all the possible values of *m*; meaning, for *m*=2, 3, …, *n*, and then dividing the remaining solutions for the corresponding value of *m*. Then, the best value of these (*n* - 1) values is the optimal Max-Mean model. Therefore, if *ZMax*-*Sum*(*m*) *\** is the optimal value of the objective function of the Max-Sum problem with *<sup>m</sup>* selected elements, and *ZMax*-*Mean \** is the optimal value of the Max-Mean problem, then:

$$Z\_{\text{Max\\_Mean}}^{\ast} = \max\_{m \in \{2, \dots, n\}} \left| \frac{Z\_{\text{Max\\_Sum}(m)}^{\ast}}{m} \right|.$$

This research takes into account two new types of test instances:


These test instances are found as available in the web site of the project OPTSICOM, [21].

Figure 1 shows the result of the resolution of the Max-Mean problem in an indirect way, for the test instances of type I and type II, of size *n* =30, solving in an exact manner in each ex‐ ample 29 Max-Sum problems, each one of the cuadratic binary formulation (8)-(10). In this investigation, the Max-Sum problems are solved by the method of dynamic search using Cplex 12.4.0, the professional solver for mixed integer linear programming problems. Prog‐ ress in computer technology and in design of MIP efficient algorithms and their implemen‐ tation in Cplex 12.4.0 together with mathematical advance lead in some cases to satisfactory solution times. Unfortunately the MIP formulation described above cannot be solved in rea‐ sonable times for medium or large problems.

Also, Figure 1 shows that the Max-Mean value of the Max-Sum solution increases as *m* in‐ creases from 2 to certain value, and then this value decreases in the rest of the range. We have observed the same pattern (approximately a concave function) in all the examples test‐ ed with positive and negative distances randomly generated. We will consider this pattern to design an efficient GRASP algorithm.

 \* Max-Sum / *<sup>m</sup> Z m*

Surprisingly, the Max-Sum model applied (*n* - 1) times permits resolving instances of a greater size in less time, and one could obtain the solution for *n* =30 in 102.30 seconds on average, and for *n* =35 in 719.51 seconds in the type I problems, in the type II problems this requires more time. Yet, in instances of size *n* =50 in 5 hours cannot obtain the optimum sol‐

Grasp and Path Relinking to Solve the Problem of Selecting Efficient Work Teams

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/53700

35

It can be concluded that if one desires to resolve the Max-Mean problem in an exact manner it is preferable to use the strategy to solve (*n* - 1) times the Max-Sum model since the it con‐ sistently worked in much less time in all the experiments. This could be due to the fact that the relaxation continues in the Max-Sum problem providing better levels than the relaxation

Given that the problems of the maximum diversity are NP-hard, it is clear that is required to make a heuristic design to resolve problems of large and medium size. In [6] a algorithm is developed based in GRASP that exploits the characteristics of the Max-Mean problem, and that is hybridized with other successful techniques of intensification, like Path Relinking (PR), and Variable Neighborhood Search, (VNS). This algorithm has resulted as an efficient

In this section, we describe a heuristic developing in [6] to solve the Max-Mean problem. This heuristic consists of a phase of construction GRASP, with a local search phase based on the Variable Neighborhood Search methodology subsequently it is improved with incorpo‐

From the results shown in Figure 1, we can design a new constructive method in which we add elements to the partial solution under construction as long as the Max-Mean value im‐ proves, and when this value starts to decrease, we stop the construction. In this way, the

In place of a typical GRASP construction for diversity in which, first, each candidate element is evaluated by a greedy function to construct the Restricted Candidate List (RCL) and then an element is selected at random from RCL we utilizing an alternative design, in accordance with the proposed in recent studies [22] in which we first apply the randomization and then the greediness can obtain improved outcomes. In particular, in our constructive method for the Max-mean problem, we first randomly choose candidates and then evaluate each candi‐ date according to the greedy function, selecting the best candidate, permitting better results.

More so specifically, given a partial solution *Mk* with *k* selected elements, the list of can‐ didates *CL* is formed by the (*n* - *k*) unselected elements. The list of restricted candi‐ dates, *RCL* , contains a fraction *α*(0<*α* <1) of the elements of *CL* selected randomly, where *α* where is a parameter that should be selected adequately, generally by computa‐

method selects by itself the value of *m*, which seems adequate to this problem.

ution for this strategy.

provided by the continued Max-Mean problem.

solution to the medium and large problems.

ration of a phase of post processing, based on Path Relinking.

**4.2. Solving the Max-Mean problem**

**4.3. GRASP construction phase**

tional experiments.

**Figure 1.** Evolution of the Optimal Values of the Max-Sum Problem divided for *m* value

Table 1 shows, that for each method and for each size of a problem, the average value of the objective function (*Value*) in the optimal solution, the average number of elements that end up being selected in the optimal solution (*m*), and the average time in seconds (*CPU* ), ND signifies that the value is not available because the solution was not reached in 5 hours. Cplex 12.4.0 only permitted solving small problems in moderate times. In particular in the linear formulation (14)-(19) can only be resolved in test instances of *n* <30, and for *n* =30 the solution could not be obtained in a 5 hour process. Experiments with Cplex corroborate the difficulties that commercial branch-and-bound codes encounter when approaching the Max-Sum and Max-Mean problem with this manner.


**Table 1.** Max-Mean Problem Solutions obtained with Cplex 12.4.0

Surprisingly, the Max-Sum model applied (*n* - 1) times permits resolving instances of a greater size in less time, and one could obtain the solution for *n* =30 in 102.30 seconds on average, and for *n* =35 in 719.51 seconds in the type I problems, in the type II problems this requires more time. Yet, in instances of size *n* =50 in 5 hours cannot obtain the optimum sol‐ ution for this strategy.

It can be concluded that if one desires to resolve the Max-Mean problem in an exact manner it is preferable to use the strategy to solve (*n* - 1) times the Max-Sum model since the it con‐ sistently worked in much less time in all the experiments. This could be due to the fact that the relaxation continues in the Max-Sum problem providing better levels than the relaxation provided by the continued Max-Mean problem.

Given that the problems of the maximum diversity are NP-hard, it is clear that is required to make a heuristic design to resolve problems of large and medium size. In [6] a algorithm is developed based in GRASP that exploits the characteristics of the Max-Mean problem, and that is hybridized with other successful techniques of intensification, like Path Relinking (PR), and Variable Neighborhood Search, (VNS). This algorithm has resulted as an efficient solution to the medium and large problems.

## **4.2. Solving the Max-Mean problem**

<sup>5</sup> <sup>10</sup> <sup>15</sup> <sup>20</sup> <sup>25</sup> <sup>30</sup> *<sup>m</sup>*

Instancias TIPO II

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Table 1 shows, that for each method and for each size of a problem, the average value of the objective function (*Value*) in the optimal solution, the average number of elements that end up being selected in the optimal solution (*m*), and the average time in seconds (*CPU* ), ND signifies that the value is not available because the solution was not reached in 5 hours. Cplex 12.4.0 only permitted solving small problems in moderate times. In particular in the linear formulation (14)-(19) can only be resolved in test instances of *n* <30, and for *n* =30 the solution could not be obtained in a 5 hour process. Experiments with Cplex corroborate the difficulties that commercial branch-and-bound codes encounter when approaching the Max-

*n* **Max-Mean Max-Sum (n-1) times Max-Mean Max-Sum (n-1) times**

**20** *CPU (s)* 50.334 14.662 66.714 19.164 *Value* 1.443 1.443 1.898 1.898 *m* 7.400 7.400 7.500 7.500 **25** *CPU (s)* 694.606 41.826 1995.100 59.581 *Value* 1.732 1.732 2.207 2.207 *m* 9.800 9.800 9.600 9.600 **30** *CPU (s)* > 5 horas 102.303 > 5 horas 182.176 *Value* ND 1.875 ND 2.383 *m* ND 10.700 ND 10.800

**TYPE I TYPE II**

<sup>5</sup> <sup>10</sup> <sup>15</sup> <sup>20</sup> <sup>25</sup> <sup>30</sup> *<sup>m</sup>*

Sum and Max-Mean problem with this manner.

**Table 1.** Max-Mean Problem Solutions obtained with Cplex 12.4.0

**Figure 1.** Evolution of the Optimal Values of the Max-Sum Problem divided for *m* value

Max-Sum / *<sup>m</sup> Z m* \*

34 Recent Advances on Meta-Heuristics and Their Application to Real Scenarios

0.5


0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

*Z*Max Sum *<sup>m</sup> m*

Max-Sum / *<sup>m</sup> Z m*

 \* Max-Sum / *<sup>m</sup> Z m*

*Z*Max Sum *<sup>m</sup> m*

\*

Instancias TIPO <sup>I</sup> Test instances I Test instances II

In this section, we describe a heuristic developing in [6] to solve the Max-Mean problem. This heuristic consists of a phase of construction GRASP, with a local search phase based on the Variable Neighborhood Search methodology subsequently it is improved with incorpo‐ ration of a phase of post processing, based on Path Relinking.

## **4.3. GRASP construction phase**

From the results shown in Figure 1, we can design a new constructive method in which we add elements to the partial solution under construction as long as the Max-Mean value im‐ proves, and when this value starts to decrease, we stop the construction. In this way, the method selects by itself the value of *m*, which seems adequate to this problem.

In place of a typical GRASP construction for diversity in which, first, each candidate element is evaluated by a greedy function to construct the Restricted Candidate List (RCL) and then an element is selected at random from RCL we utilizing an alternative design, in accordance with the proposed in recent studies [22] in which we first apply the randomization and then the greediness can obtain improved outcomes. In particular, in our constructive method for the Max-mean problem, we first randomly choose candidates and then evaluate each candi‐ date according to the greedy function, selecting the best candidate, permitting better results.

More so specifically, given a partial solution *Mk* with *k* selected elements, the list of can‐ didates *CL* is formed by the (*n* - *k*) unselected elements. The list of restricted candi‐ dates, *RCL* , contains a fraction *α*(0<*α* <1) of the elements of *CL* selected randomly, where *α* where is a parameter that should be selected adequately, generally by computa‐ tional experiments.

Then, for each element *i* ∈*RCL* , the method computes its contribution, *eval*(*i*), if it is added to *Mk* to obtain *Mk* ∪{*i*}: experiments. Then, for each element� ∈ ��� , the method computes its contribution, �������, if it is added

In place of a typical GRASP construction for diversity in which, first, each candidate element is evaluated by a greedy function to construct the Restricted Candidate List (RCL) and then an element is selected at random from RCL we utilizing an alternative design, in accordance with the proposed in recent studies [22] in which we first apply the randomization and then the greediness can obtain improved outcomes. In particular, in our constructive method for the Max-mean problem, we first randomly choose candidates and then evaluate each candidate according to the greedy function, selecting the best candidate, permitting better

���, contains a fraction ��0 < � < 1� of the elements of�� selected randomly, where � where is a parameter that should be selected adequately, generally by computational

*eval*(*i*)=*div*(*Mk* ∪{*i*}) - *div*(*Mk* ) to � to obtain � ∪ ���:

results.

Where *div*(∙ ) is the mean diversity defined in the equation (6). ������� = ����� ∪ ���� − ������

Afterwards, the method selects the best candidate *i \** in *RCL* if this improves the actual par‐ tial solution; this is to say, if *eval*(*<sup>i</sup> \**) >0, and add it to the partial solution, *Mk* +1 <sup>=</sup>*Mk* <sup>∪</sup>{*<sup>i</sup> \**}; otherwise, if *eval*(*i \**) ≤0, the method stops. Where����∙� is the mean diversity defined in the equation 1)(6). Afterwards, the method selects the best candidate�∗ in��� if this improves the actual partial solution; this is to say, if ������<sup>∗</sup>� > 0, and add it to the partial solution, � = � ∪ ��<sup>∗</sup>�; in a contrary case, if ������<sup>∗</sup>� ≤ 0, the method stop.

Figure 2 show the pseudo-code of this phase of construction of the method that one calls heuristic GRASP. Figure 2 show the pseudo code of this phase of construction of the method that one calls heuristic GRASP.

> 1. Select an element �⋆ at random in � = �1, 2, … , ��. 2. Make � = ��<sup>⋆</sup>�, � = 1 and ������� = 1. While ( ������� = 1 ) 3. Compute �� = �1, 2, … , �� ∖ � 4. Construct ��� with �|��| elements randomly selected in �� 5. Compute ������� = ���� ∪ ���� − �����∀� ∈ ��� 6. Select the element �⋆in ��� with maximum ���� value If (������<sup>⋆</sup>� > 0) 7. � = �⋃��<sup>⋆</sup>� 8. � = � + 1 Else 9. ������� = 0

**Figure 2.** GRASP construction phase Figure 2. GRASP construction phase

#### **4.4. Local search in GRASP**

The GRASP construction usually does not obtain a local optimum and it is customary in GRASP to apply a local search method to the solution constructed. As shown in [6], previ‐ ous local search methods for diversity problems limit themselves to exchange a selected with an unselected element, keeping constant the number m of selected elements. Since we do not have this size constraint in the Max-Mean model and we admit solutions with any value of *m*, we can consider an extended neighborhood based on the Variable Neighbor‐ hood Descent (VND) methodology.

11

**•** *N*2: Exchange a selected element with an unselected one, keeping constant the number of

**•** *N*3: Add an unselected element to the set of selected elements, thus increasing its size by

The order of exploration of the neighborhoods is given to try, in the range of possibility, di‐ minishing the number of selected elements, increasing its diversity as well, which happens when a better solution is obtained in *N*1. If this is not possible, one can conserve the cardin‐ ality of the selected set with the obligation of increasing diversity, just like what happens when exploring the neighborhood *N*2. Finally, by exploring *N*3, one is willing to increase the

More specifically: Given a solution, *Mm*, the local search first tries to obtain a solution in

any case, regardless that we found the improved solution in *N*1 or in *N*2, in the next iter‐ ation the method starts scanning *N*1 to improve the current solution. If neither *N*1 nor *N*<sup>2</sup> is able to contain a solution better than the current solution, we finally resort to *N*3. If the method succeeds, finding *Mm*+1 *'* with *dm*(*M <sup>m</sup>*+1 *'* ) >*dm*(*Mm*), then we apply the move and consider *Mm*+1 *'* as the current solution (and come back to N1 in the next iteration). Other‐ wise, since none of the neighborhoods contain a solution better that the current one, the

To accelerate the search in these neighborhoods, one would not make the exploration in a sequential manner over the elements of a specific neighborhood, if not one would evaluate the potential contribution to the partial solution of the following manner: Given a solution *Mm*, one calculates the contribution of each element selected *i*, just like the potential contri‐

Thus, when exploring *N*1 one searches for the elements selected in the given order by *ds*, where the element with the smallest value is tested first. Similarly, when exploring *N*2 prov‐ ing the selected elements in the same order but the elements unselected in the inverse order, this is to say, first considering the elements not selected with a grand potential contribution

Finally, when exploring *N*<sup>3</sup> the elements not selected, that are considered to be added in the actual solution, they are explored in the same manner than in *N*2, in which the element with the largest contribution is considered first. Figure 3 outlines the pseudo-code of this phase.

and searches for the first exchange that improves *Mm*. If it succeeds, and finds *Mm*

) >*dm*(*Mm*), then we apply the move and consider *Mm*

*'*

with *dm*(*M <sup>m</sup>*-1 *'* ) >*dm*(*Mm*), then we apply

*'*with

as the current solution. In

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/53700

37

as the current solution. Otherwise, the method resorts to *N*<sup>2</sup>

Grasp and Path Relinking to Solve the Problem of Selecting Efficient Work Teams

*'*

selected elements.

cardinality of the set selected if increasing diversity.

*N*1 to improve it. If it succeeds, and finds *Mm*-1

*'*

the move and consider *Mm*-1

bution of each element unselected *i* like:

one unit.

*dm*(*M <sup>m</sup> '*

method stops.

*ds*(*i*, *Mm*) = ∑

*j*∈*Mm dij*

to the partial solution.

We consider the combination of three neighborhoods in our local search procedure:

**•** *N*1: Remove an element from the current solution, thus reducing the number of selected elements by one unit.


The order of exploration of the neighborhoods is given to try, in the range of possibility, di‐ minishing the number of selected elements, increasing its diversity as well, which happens when a better solution is obtained in *N*1. If this is not possible, one can conserve the cardin‐ ality of the selected set with the obligation of increasing diversity, just like what happens when exploring the neighborhood *N*2. Finally, by exploring *N*3, one is willing to increase the cardinality of the set selected if increasing diversity.

More specifically: Given a solution, *Mm*, the local search first tries to obtain a solution in *N*1 to improve it. If it succeeds, and finds *Mm*-1 *'* with *dm*(*M <sup>m</sup>*-1 *'* ) >*dm*(*Mm*), then we apply the move and consider *Mm*-1 *'* as the current solution. Otherwise, the method resorts to *N*<sup>2</sup> and searches for the first exchange that improves *Mm*. If it succeeds, and finds *Mm '* with *dm*(*M <sup>m</sup> '* ) >*dm*(*Mm*), then we apply the move and consider *Mm '* as the current solution. In any case, regardless that we found the improved solution in *N*1 or in *N*2, in the next iter‐ ation the method starts scanning *N*1 to improve the current solution. If neither *N*1 nor *N*<sup>2</sup> is able to contain a solution better than the current solution, we finally resort to *N*3. If the method succeeds, finding *Mm*+1 *'* with *dm*(*M <sup>m</sup>*+1 *'* ) >*dm*(*Mm*), then we apply the move and consider *Mm*+1 *'* as the current solution (and come back to N1 in the next iteration). Other‐ wise, since none of the neighborhoods contain a solution better that the current one, the method stops.

To accelerate the search in these neighborhoods, one would not make the exploration in a sequential manner over the elements of a specific neighborhood, if not one would evaluate the potential contribution to the partial solution of the following manner: Given a solution *Mm*, one calculates the contribution of each element selected *i*, just like the potential contri‐ bution of each element unselected *i* like:

$$d\_s(i, \, M\_m) = \sum\_{j \in M\_m} d\_{ij}.$$

11

Then, for each element *i* ∈*RCL* , the method computes its contribution, *eval*(*i*), if it is added

In place of a typical GRASP construction for diversity in which, first, each candidate element is evaluated by a greedy function to construct the Restricted Candidate List (RCL) and then an element is selected at random from RCL we utilizing an alternative design, in accordance with the proposed in recent studies [22] in which we first apply the randomization and then the greediness can obtain improved outcomes. In particular, in our constructive method for the Max-mean problem, we first randomly choose candidates and then evaluate each candidate according to the greedy function, selecting the best candidate, permitting better

More so specifically, given a partial solution� with� selected elements, the list of candidates�� is formed by the�� − �� unselected elements. The list of restricted candidates, ���, contains a fraction ��0 < � < 1� of the elements of�� selected randomly, where � where is a parameter that should be selected adequately, generally by computational

Then, for each element� ∈ ��� , the method computes its contribution, �������, if it is added

������� = ����� ∪ ���� − ������

Afterwards, the method selects the best candidate�∗ in��� if this improves the actual partial solution; this is to say, if ������<sup>∗</sup>� > 0, and add it to the partial solution, � = � ∪ ��<sup>∗</sup>�; in a

Figure 2 show the pseudo code of this phase of construction of the method that one calls

4. Construct ��� with �|��| elements randomly selected in �� 5. Compute ������� = ���� ∪ ���� − �����∀� ∈ ��� 6. Select the element �⋆in ��� with maximum ���� value

tial solution; this is to say, if *eval*(*<sup>i</sup> \**) >0, and add it to the partial solution, *Mk* +1 <sup>=</sup>*Mk* <sup>∪</sup>{*<sup>i</sup> \**};

Where����∙� is the mean diversity defined in the equation 1)(6).

1. Select an element �⋆ at random in � = �1, 2, … , ��.

2. Make � = ��<sup>⋆</sup>�, � = 1 and ������� = 1.

3. Compute �� = �1, 2, … , �� ∖ �

7. � = �⋃��<sup>⋆</sup>� 8. � = � + 1

9. ������� = 0

**Figure 2.** GRASP construction phase Figure 2. GRASP construction phase

The GRASP construction usually does not obtain a local optimum and it is customary in GRASP to apply a local search method to the solution constructed. As shown in [6], previ‐ ous local search methods for diversity problems limit themselves to exchange a selected with an unselected element, keeping constant the number m of selected elements. Since we do not have this size constraint in the Max-Mean model and we admit solutions with any value of *m*, we can consider an extended neighborhood based on the Variable Neighbor‐

We consider the combination of three neighborhoods in our local search procedure:

**•** *N*1: Remove an element from the current solution, thus reducing the number of selected

Figure 2 show the pseudo-code of this phase of construction of the method that one calls

in *RCL* if this improves the actual par‐

Where *div*(∙ ) is the mean diversity defined in the equation (6).

contrary case, if ������<sup>∗</sup>� ≤ 0, the method stop.

Afterwards, the method selects the best candidate *i \**

36 Recent Advances on Meta-Heuristics and Their Application to Real Scenarios

otherwise, if *eval*(*i \**) ≤0, the method stops.

While ( ������� = 1 )

Else

**4.4. Local search in GRASP**

hood Descent (VND) methodology.

elements by one unit.

If (������<sup>⋆</sup>� > 0)

heuristic GRASP.

to � to obtain � ∪ ���:

to *Mk* to obtain *Mk* ∪{*i*}:

results.

heuristic GRASP.

*eval*(*i*)=*div*(*Mk* ∪{*i*}) - *div*(*Mk* )

experiments.

Thus, when exploring *N*1 one searches for the elements selected in the given order by *ds*, where the element with the smallest value is tested first. Similarly, when exploring *N*2 prov‐ ing the selected elements in the same order but the elements unselected in the inverse order, this is to say, first considering the elements not selected with a grand potential contribution to the partial solution.

Finally, when exploring *N*<sup>3</sup> the elements not selected, that are considered to be added in the actual solution, they are explored in the same manner than in *N*2, in which the element with the largest contribution is considered first. Figure 3 outlines the pseudo-code of this phase.

1. Select an element ⋆ at random in . 2. Make <sup>1</sup> <sup>⋆</sup> , and . While ( ) 3. Compute 4. Construct with | | elements randomly selected in 5. Compute ∪ 6. Select the element ⋆in with maximum value If ( ⋆ ) 7. ⋃ <sup>⋆</sup> 8. Else 9.

termediate solution *x*(2). In this way we generate a path of intermediate solutions until we reach *y*. The output of the PR algorithm is the best solution, different from *x* and *y*, found in the path. We submit this best solution to the improvement method. Figure 4 shows a pseu‐ do-code of the entire GRASP with Path Relinking algorithm in which we can see that we ap‐

> , *x* 2 , …, *x<sup>b</sup>* }.

) and *d*(*x',ES*) ³ *dth* ) )

,*xi*

8. Update the order in ES (from the best *x*<sup>1</sup>

We also propose a new adaptation of existing methods for several models of maximum di‐

Prokopyev et al. in [20] introduced several models to deal with the equitable dispersion problem and the maximum diversity problem. The authors proposed a GRASP with local search for the Max-MinSum variant in which for each selected element (in *M* ), they compute the sum of the distances to the other selected elements (also in *M* ) and then calculate the minimum of these values. The objective of the Max-MinSum model is to maximize this mini‐ mum sum of distances. We can adapt the method above, originally proposed for the Max-

Also, Duarte and Martí in [26] proposed different heuristics for the Max-Sum model. In par‐ ticular the authors adapted the GRASP methodology to maximize the sum of the distances among the selected elements. We also adapt this algorithm to solve the Max-Mean Model,

In the final experiment we target the 20 largest instances in our data set (n=500). Table 3 shows the average results on each type of instances of GRASP1, GRASP2 and our two meth‐

) and PR(*x<sup>j</sup>*

11. Apply the local search phase of GRASP to *x x*'.

be the closest solution to *x*' in ES with *f*(*x*')>*f*(*x<sup>k</sup>*

*.*

).

).

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/53700

39

to the worst *x<sup>b</sup>*

), let *x* be the best solution found

Grasp and Path Relinking to Solve the Problem of Selecting Efficient Work Teams

ply both *PR*(*x*, *y*) and *PR*(*y*, *x*) to all the pairs *x*, *y* in the elite set *ES*.

4. Apply the construction phase of GRASP  *x.* 

for *b*=|ES| iterations to populate ES={ *x*<sup>1</sup>

) or (*f*(*x*') >*f*(*x*

6. Let *x<sup>k</sup>*

3. *iter*=*b*+1.

If ( *f*(*x*') >*f*(*x*

9. Let *xbest*= *x*<sup>1</sup>

13. Return *xbest*.

**4.6. Comparison with existing methods**

**Figure 4.** GRASP with Path Relinking

versity problem.

While( *iter*≤*GlobalIter* )

1

. For(*i*=1 to *b*-1 and *j*=*i*+1 to *b*) 10. Apply PR(*x<sup>i</sup>*

 If(*f*(*x*') >*f*(*xbest*)) 12. *xbest*= *x'*.

1. Set *GlobalIter* equal to the number of global iterations. 2. Apply the GRASP method (construction plus improvement)

5. Apply the local search phase of GRASP to *x x*'.

7. Add *x*' to ES and remove *x<sup>k</sup>*

*b*

,*xj*

MinSum, to the Max Mean model. We call this adapted method GRASP1.

and we call the entire method (constructive phase + local search) GRASP2.

Adaptation details of these algorithms can be seen in [6]

**Figure 3.** Local search in GRASP

#### **4.5. GRASP with path relinking**

The Path Relinking algorithm was described for the first time in the framework of tabu search method, it operates on a Elite Set of solutions (*ES*), constructed with the application of a previous method. Here we apply GRASP to build *ES* considering both quality and di‐ versity. Initially *ES* is empty, and we apply GRASP for *b* =|*ES*| iterations and populate it with the solutions obtained (ordering the solutions in *ES* from the best *x* <sup>1</sup> to the worst *x <sup>b</sup>* ). Then, in the following GRASP iterations, we test whether the generated solution *x '* , qualify or not to enter *ES*. Specifically, if *x '* is better than *x* <sup>1</sup> , it enters in the set. Moreover, if it is better than *x <sup>b</sup>* and it is sufficiently different from the other solutions in the set (*d*(*x '* , *ES*) ≥*dth* ), it also enters *ES*. To keep the size of *ES* constant and equal to *b*, when we add a solution to this set, we remove another one. To maintain the quality and the diversity, we remove the closest solution to *x '* in *ES* among those worse than it in value.

Given two solutions, *x* ,*y* , interpreted as binary vectors with *n* variables, where variable *xi* takes the value 1 if element *i* is selected, 0 otherwise, the distance *d*(*x*, *y*) can be computed as *d*(*x*, *y*)= ∑ *i*=1 *n* |*xi* - *yi* | and the distance between a solution *x '* and the set *ES*, *d*(*x '* , *ES*), can

be computed as the sum of the distances between *x '* and all the elements in *ES*.

The path relinking procedure *PR*(*x*, *y*) starts with the first solution *x*, called the initiating solution, and gradually transforms it into the final one *y* called the guiding solution. At each iteration we consider to remove an elements in *x* not present in *y*, or to add an element in *y* not present in *x*. The method selects the best one among these candidates, creating the first intermediate solution, *x*(1). Then, we consider to remove an element in *x*(1) not present in *y*, or to add an element in *y* not present in *x*(1). The best of these candidates is the second in‐ termediate solution *x*(2). In this way we generate a path of intermediate solutions until we reach *y*. The output of the PR algorithm is the best solution, different from *x* and *y*, found in the path. We submit this best solution to the improvement method. Figure 4 shows a pseu‐ do-code of the entire GRASP with Path Relinking algorithm in which we can see that we ap‐ ply both *PR*(*x*, *y*) and *PR*(*y*, *x*) to all the pairs *x*, *y* in the elite set *ES*.

```
1. Set GlobalIter equal to the number of global iterations. 
2. Apply the GRASP method (construction plus improvement) 
 for b=|ES| iterations to populate ES={ x1
                                        , x
                                           2
                                            , …, xb
                                                   }. 
3. iter=b+1. 
While( iter≤GlobalIter ) 
 4. Apply the construction phase of GRASP  x. 
 5. Apply the local search phase of GRASP to x x'. 
 If ( f(x') >f(x
             1
              ) or (f(x') >f(x
                            b
                             ) and d(x',ES) ³ dth ) ) 
               6. Let xk
                        be the closest solution to x' in ES with f(x')>f(xk
                                                                       ). 
               7. Add x' to ES and remove xk
                                             .
               8. Update the order in ES (from the best x1
                                                           to the worst xb
                                                                         ). 
9. Let xbest= x1
              . 
For(i=1 to b-1 and j=i+1 to b) 
 10. Apply PR(xi
                          ,xj
                            ) and PR(xj
                                       ,xi
                                         ), let x be the best solution found 
 11. Apply the local search phase of GRASP to x x'. 
 If(f(x') >f(xbest)) 
 12. xbest= x'. 
13. Return xbest.
```
**Figure 4.** GRASP with Path Relinking

).

, qualify

, *ES*), can

, it enters in the set. Moreover, if it is

1. Select an element ⋆ at random in .

4. Construct with | | elements randomly selected in

6. Select the element ⋆in with maximum value

The Path Relinking algorithm was described for the first time in the framework of tabu search method, it operates on a Elite Set of solutions (*ES*), constructed with the application of a previous method. Here we apply GRASP to build *ES* considering both quality and di‐ versity. Initially *ES* is empty, and we apply GRASP for *b* =|*ES*| iterations and populate it with the solutions obtained (ordering the solutions in *ES* from the best *x* <sup>1</sup> to the worst *x <sup>b</sup>*

Then, in the following GRASP iterations, we test whether the generated solution *x '*

is better than *x* <sup>1</sup>

Given two solutions, *x* ,*y* , interpreted as binary vectors with *n* variables, where variable *xi* takes the value 1 if element *i* is selected, 0 otherwise, the distance *d*(*x*, *y*) can be computed

The path relinking procedure *PR*(*x*, *y*) starts with the first solution *x*, called the initiating solution, and gradually transforms it into the final one *y* called the guiding solution. At each iteration we consider to remove an elements in *x* not present in *y*, or to add an element in *y* not present in *x*. The method selects the best one among these candidates, creating the first intermediate solution, *x*(1). Then, we consider to remove an element in *x*(1) not present in *y*, or to add an element in *y* not present in *x*(1). The best of these candidates is the second in‐

, *ES*) ≥*dth* ), it also enters *ES*. To keep the size of *ES* constant and equal to *b*, when we add a solution to this set, we remove another one. To maintain the quality and the diversity,


and it is sufficiently different from the other solutions in the set

in *ES* among those worse than it in value.

and all the elements in *ES*.

2. Make <sup>1</sup> <sup>⋆</sup> , and .

5. Compute ∪

7. ⋃ <sup>⋆</sup>

While ( ) 3. Compute

If ( ⋆ )

38 Recent Advances on Meta-Heuristics and Their Application to Real Scenarios

8.

Else 9.

**Figure 3.** Local search in GRASP

**4.5. GRASP with path relinking**

or not to enter *ES*. Specifically, if *x '*

we remove the closest solution to *x '*


be computed as the sum of the distances between *x '*

better than *x <sup>b</sup>*

as *d*(*x*, *y*)= ∑

*i*=1 *n*

(*d*(*x '*

## **4.6. Comparison with existing methods**

We also propose a new adaptation of existing methods for several models of maximum di‐ versity problem.

Prokopyev et al. in [20] introduced several models to deal with the equitable dispersion problem and the maximum diversity problem. The authors proposed a GRASP with local search for the Max-MinSum variant in which for each selected element (in *M* ), they compute the sum of the distances to the other selected elements (also in *M* ) and then calculate the minimum of these values. The objective of the Max-MinSum model is to maximize this mini‐ mum sum of distances. We can adapt the method above, originally proposed for the Max-MinSum, to the Max Mean model. We call this adapted method GRASP1.

Also, Duarte and Martí in [26] proposed different heuristics for the Max-Sum model. In par‐ ticular the authors adapted the GRASP methodology to maximize the sum of the distances among the selected elements. We also adapt this algorithm to solve the Max-Mean Model, and we call the entire method (constructive phase + local search) GRASP2.

Adaptation details of these algorithms can be seen in [6]

In the final experiment we target the 20 largest instances in our data set (n=500). Table 3 shows the average results on each type of instances of GRASP1, GRASP2 and our two meth‐ ods, GRASP and GRASP with Path Relinking described in this Section. Results in Table 3 are in line with the results obtained in the previous experiments. They confirm that GRASP con‐ sistently obtains better results than GRASP1 and GRASP2. As shown in the last column of Table 3, Path Relinking is able to improve the results of GRASP in all the instances.

Only applying the constructive phase of GRASP one can reach the exact optimum of the problems 90% of the times, for the test instances of type I, and the 80% of the times in the test instances of type II, and in a reduced amount of time (less than a second), also in instan‐

Being that is no longer possible to compare the optimal solution of these problems, in place of GAP it is reported that a percentage of deviation in respect to the best solutions found in the experiments, the represented value in the tables like deviation, and that it is equal to:

**Type I** Value 7.71370 7.7977 6.6796 7.0163

**Type II** Vaue 10.2957 10.437 88.98 92.68

*m* 139.4 145.2 154.4 157.6 # Best 0 10 0 0 Deviation 1.07% 0.00% 14.31% 10.01% CPU (sec.) 717.3 688.1 1414.5 950.9

*m* 143.2 144.4 186.1 170.4 # Best 0 10 0 0 Deviation 1.53% 0.00% 14.74% 11.18% CPU (sec.) 662.422 679.641 804.8 708.3

Table 3 shows that the Path Relinking phase permitted improvements to the results of the heuristic GRASP, GRASP1 (based in [20]) and GRASP2 (based in [26]) in all of the test in‐

Our local search in the heuristic GRASP utilizes three types of neighborhoods, generated ac‐ cording to the methodology VNS, these neighborhoods are represented by: *N*<sup>1</sup> (remove an element from the solution), *N*<sup>2</sup> (exchange a selected element with an unselected one), and *N*<sup>3</sup> (add an unselected element to the solution). This way an interesting study is measured by

Figure 6 depicts a bar chart with the average number of times, in the 20 instances of size *n* =150 used in our preliminary experimentation, that each neighborhood is able to improve the current solution. We can see that, although *N*<sup>2</sup> improves the solutions in a larger number

**5.3. Search profile in Variable Neighborhood Search (VNS) methodology by GRASP**

the contribution of each type of neighborhood to the quality of the final solution.

**GRASP GRASP+PR GRASP1 GRASP2**

Grasp and Path Relinking to Solve the Problem of Selecting Efficient Work Teams

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/53700

41

ces in which the optimum is not found, the GAP is very small.

*best solution* ×100*%*

**Table 3.** Comparison of the obtained results with GRASP+PR in large instances

stances of size *n* =500 and for the two types of examples considered

**5.2. Solution to large problems**

*Deviation* <sup>=</sup> *best solution* - *current solution*

## **5. Numeric experiments with test instances**

This section contains the results of a large number of numerical experiments that is made to evaluate and calibrate the GRASP algorithm, which was implemented in Mathematica V.71 , the experiments are processed in an Intel Core 2 Laptop, 1.4 GHz and 2GB de RAM. The parameters of the algorithms were calibrated through extensive computational experiments.

#### **5.1. GRASP heuristic performance on small problems**

In this section a comparison is made of the performance of the heuristic GRASP and the ex‐ act optimal reported for small problems. The results are shown in Table 2.

Small instances of size *n* =30 were used, the largest are for those that can be resolved with Cplex 12.4.0 in an exact manner in reasonable times. Since the optimal is known, a measurement of the precision of the methods is the difference in relative percentage with respect to the opti‐ mum (GAP). Table 2 shows the average of the objective function (Value), the average number of elements selected (*m*), the times that the optimum was reached (# of optimal times), the rela‐ tive difference with the optimal (GAP) and the average time in seconds (CPU Time).


**Table 2.** Performance of the constructive phase in small problems

<sup>1</sup> Mathematica is a computational software program used in scientific, engineering, and mathematical fields and other areas of technical computing. It is developed by Wolfram Research.

Only applying the constructive phase of GRASP one can reach the exact optimum of the problems 90% of the times, for the test instances of type I, and the 80% of the times in the test instances of type II, and in a reduced amount of time (less than a second), also in instan‐ ces in which the optimum is not found, the GAP is very small.

## **5.2. Solution to large problems**

ods, GRASP and GRASP with Path Relinking described in this Section. Results in Table 3 are in line with the results obtained in the previous experiments. They confirm that GRASP con‐ sistently obtains better results than GRASP1 and GRASP2. As shown in the last column of

This section contains the results of a large number of numerical experiments that is made to evaluate and calibrate the GRASP algorithm, which was implemented in Mathematica V.71

the experiments are processed in an Intel Core 2 Laptop, 1.4 GHz and 2GB de RAM. The parameters of the algorithms were calibrated through extensive computational experiments.

In this section a comparison is made of the performance of the heuristic GRASP and the ex‐

Small instances of size *n* =30 were used, the largest are for those that can be resolved with Cplex 12.4.0 in an exact manner in reasonable times. Since the optimal is known, a measurement of the precision of the methods is the difference in relative percentage with respect to the opti‐ mum (GAP). Table 2 shows the average of the objective function (Value), the average number of elements selected (*m*), the times that the optimum was reached (# of optimal times), the rela‐

**GRASP constructive Cplex 12.4.0**

tive difference with the optimal (GAP) and the average time in seconds (CPU Time).

**Type I** Value 1.87351 1.874955

**Type II** Value 2.377163 2.383

*m* 10.8 10.7 # optimal times 9 10 GAP 0.084% 0% CPU Time 0.35444 102.303

*m* 10.3 10.8 # optimal times 6 10 GAP 0.397% 0% CPU Time 0.3444 182.176

1 Mathematica is a computational software program used in scientific, engineering, and mathematical fields and other

act optimal reported for small problems. The results are shown in Table 2.

,

Table 3, Path Relinking is able to improve the results of GRASP in all the instances.

**5. Numeric experiments with test instances**

40 Recent Advances on Meta-Heuristics and Their Application to Real Scenarios

**5.1. GRASP heuristic performance on small problems**

**Table 2.** Performance of the constructive phase in small problems

areas of technical computing. It is developed by Wolfram Research.

Being that is no longer possible to compare the optimal solution of these problems, in place of GAP it is reported that a percentage of deviation in respect to the best solutions found in the experiments, the represented value in the tables like deviation, and that it is equal to:

*Deviation* <sup>=</sup> *best solution* - *current solution best solution* ×100*%*


**Table 3.** Comparison of the obtained results with GRASP+PR in large instances

Table 3 shows that the Path Relinking phase permitted improvements to the results of the heuristic GRASP, GRASP1 (based in [20]) and GRASP2 (based in [26]) in all of the test in‐ stances of size *n* =500 and for the two types of examples considered

## **5.3. Search profile in Variable Neighborhood Search (VNS) methodology by GRASP**

Our local search in the heuristic GRASP utilizes three types of neighborhoods, generated ac‐ cording to the methodology VNS, these neighborhoods are represented by: *N*<sup>1</sup> (remove an element from the solution), *N*<sup>2</sup> (exchange a selected element with an unselected one), and *N*<sup>3</sup> (add an unselected element to the solution). This way an interesting study is measured by the contribution of each type of neighborhood to the quality of the final solution.

Figure 6 depicts a bar chart with the average number of times, in the 20 instances of size *n* =150 used in our preliminary experimentation, that each neighborhood is able to improve the current solution. We can see that, although *N*<sup>2</sup> improves the solutions in a larger number of cases, *N*1 and *N*<sup>3</sup> are also able to improve them and therefore contribute to obtain the final solution.

**Figure 5.** Average number of improvements of each GRASP neighborhood

Curiously, if one calculates the was average contribution to the improvement of the function of the objective that provides the exploration in each one of the types of neighborhoods, one can observe that the neighborhoods of type *N*1 and *N*<sup>3</sup> provide greatest contribution on aver‐ age compared with the visit to the neighborhood *N*2, as shown in Figure 6.

#### **5.4. Solution of large problems using GRASP with Path Relinking**

In this section the experiments made are described with the 20 test instances of size *n* =500. Table 3 shows the summary of the results obtained in the large instances when applying the algorithms proposed, the values correspond to the achieved averages with each one of the test instances of this size.

18

CPU Time

GRASP GRASP+PR

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/53700

43

Figure 6. Contribution to improving the objective function value for each neighborhood

Finally, to complete the analysis of the comparison of the efficiency of the algorithms that are designed, graphs were made of the profile of search of the algorithms; this is to say, since these heuristics were improving the value of the objective function of the time of execution. In Figure 7 One can observe the amplified details of its profile for a search in the neighborhood of the best values found. The figure clearly shows the GRASP achieves good solutions quickly. The execution of GRASP+PR, the phase of relinking of trajectories is executed after the elite set, , has been populated, which occurs after approximately 450 seconds, on average. Then the phase of path relinking properly said, by applying the procedure to each pair of solutions of the elite set, the evolution of the best solution found show that this phase permits obtaining the best solutions quickly, surpassing the GRASP (without PR), that after a certain moment does no achieve improvements in the solutions in the same proportion that GRASP+PR, and therefore is seen surpassing due to this. Similar

Grasp and Path Relinking to Solve the Problem of Selecting Efficient Work Teams

Figure 7. Search profile of GRASP and GRASP+PR

5. A case of application for the Max-Mean problem. Teams that are more diverse are

This way, in daily activities of organizations, companies, schools, sport teams, etc. it has been observed through evidence that diversity has an important role on the ability for groups of people to solve problems. Lately, literature investigations have shown formally that this empirical phenomenon is true, proportioning a theoretic justification for this fact, for example in [10]. A consequence of this is that, under certain circumstances, the groups of people that have conformed in a diverse manner can surpass the productivity of the groups conformed

more efficient for problem solving than those less diverse

**6.1. Teams that are more diverse are more efficient for problem solving than those less**

This way, in daily activities of organizations, companies, schools, sport teams, etc. it has been observed through evidence that diversity has an important role on the ability for groups of people to solve problems. Lately, literature investigations have shown formally that this empirical phenomenon is true, proportioning a theoretic justification for this fact, for example in [10]. A consequence of this is that, under certain circumstances, the groups of

Finally, to complete the analysis of the comparison of the efficiency of the algorithms that are designed, graphs were made of the profile of search of the algorithms; this is to say, since these heuristics were improving the value of the objective function of the time of exe‐ cution. In Figure 7 one can observe the amplified details of its profile for a search in the neighborhood of the best values found. The figure clearly shows the GRASP achieves good solutions quickly. The execution of GRASP+PR, the phase of relinking of trajectories is exe‐ cuted after the elite set, *ES*, has been populated, which occurs after approximately 450 sec‐ onds, on average. Then the phase of path relinking properly said, by applying the procedure to each pair of solutions of the elite set, the evolution of the best solution found show that this phase permits obtaining the best solutions quickly, surpassing the GRASP (without PR), that after a certain moment does no achieve improvements in the solutions in the same pro‐ portion that GRASP+PR, and therefore is seen surpassing due to this. Similar profiles are ob‐

200 400 600 800

4.6 Search Profile

20

**5.5. Search profile**

served for Type II instances

**diverse**

**6. A case of application for the Max-Mean problem**

**Figure 7.** Search profile of GRASP and GRASP+PR

40

60

80 Best Value

profiles are observed for Type II instances

**Figure 6.** Contribution to improving the objective function value for each neighborhood

Figure 6. Contribution to improving the objective function value for each neighborhood

Finally, to complete the analysis of the comparison of the efficiency of the algorithms that are designed, graphs were made of the profile of search of the algorithms; this is to say, since these heuristics were improving the value of the objective function of the time of execution. In Figure 7 One can observe the amplified details of its profile for a search in the neighborhood of the best values found. The figure clearly shows the GRASP achieves good solutions quickly. The execution of GRASP+PR, the phase of relinking of trajectories is executed after the elite set, , has been populated, which occurs after approximately 450 seconds, on average. Then the phase of path relinking properly said, by applying the

the same proportion that GRASP+PR, and therefore is seen surpassing due to this. Similar

Figure 7. Search profile of GRASP and GRASP+PR **Figure 7.** Search profile of GRASP and GRASP+PR

4.6 Search Profile

profiles are observed for Type II instances

#### 5. A case of application for the Max-Mean problem. Teams that are more diverse are more efficient for problem solving than those less diverse **5.5. Search profile**

of cases, *N*1 and *N*<sup>3</sup> are also able to improve them and therefore contribute to obtain the final

*N*<sup>1</sup> *N*<sup>2</sup> *N*<sup>3</sup>

age compared with the visit to the neighborhood *N*2, as shown in Figure 6.

**5.4. Solution of large problems using GRASP with Path Relinking**

Curiously, if one calculates the was average contribution to the improvement of the function of the objective that provides the exploration in each one of the types of neighborhoods, one can observe that the neighborhoods of type *N*1 and *N*<sup>3</sup> provide greatest contribution on aver‐

In this section the experiments made are described with the 20 test instances of size *n* =500. Table 3 shows the summary of the results obtained in the large instances when applying the algorithms proposed, the values correspond to the achieved averages with each one of the

Po Por *N*<sup>2</sup> Por *N*<sup>3</sup> r *N*<sup>1</sup>

**Figure 6.** Contribution to improving the objective function value for each neighborhood

**Figure 5.** Average number of improvements of each GRASP neighborhood

42 Recent Advances on Meta-Heuristics and Their Application to Real Scenarios

Tipo I Tipo II Type I Type II

Type I

Type II

solution.

test instances of this size.

18 This way, in daily activities of organizations, companies, schools, sport teams, etc. it has been observed through evidence that diversity has an important role on the ability for groups of people to solve problems. Lately, literature investigations have shown formally that this empirical phenomenon is true, proportioning a theoretic justification for this fact, for example in [10]. A consequence of this is that, under certain circumstances, the groups of people that have conformed in a diverse manner can surpass the productivity of the groups conformed Finally, to complete the analysis of the comparison of the efficiency of the algorithms that are designed, graphs were made of the profile of search of the algorithms; this is to say, since these heuristics were improving the value of the objective function of the time of exe‐ cution. In Figure 7 one can observe the amplified details of its profile for a search in the neighborhood of the best values found. The figure clearly shows the GRASP achieves good solutions quickly. The execution of GRASP+PR, the phase of relinking of trajectories is exe‐ cuted after the elite set, *ES*, has been populated, which occurs after approximately 450 sec‐ onds, on average. Then the phase of path relinking properly said, by applying the procedure to each pair of solutions of the elite set, the evolution of the best solution found show that this phase permits obtaining the best solutions quickly, surpassing the GRASP (without PR), that after a certain moment does no achieve improvements in the solutions in the same pro‐ portion that GRASP+PR, and therefore is seen surpassing due to this. Similar profiles are ob‐ served for Type II instances

## **6. A case of application for the Max-Mean problem**

#### **6.1. Teams that are more diverse are more efficient for problem solving than those less diverse**

This way, in daily activities of organizations, companies, schools, sport teams, etc. it has been observed through evidence that diversity has an important role on the ability for groups of people to solve problems. Lately, literature investigations have shown formally that this empirical phenomenon is true, proportioning a theoretic justification for this fact, for example in [10]. A consequence of this is that, under certain circumstances, the groups of people that have conformed in a diverse manner can surpass the productivity of the groups conformed by the people individually more capable to resolve these problems; meaning, in a certain way diversity triumphant over the ability.

the mapping *H* is the set of the other solutions that the person considers. In this manner, the ability to resolve the problem on behalf of a person is represented by its couple of perspective-heuristic (*P*, *H* ). Two people can differ in one of these components or in both; meaning, they can have different perspectives or different heuristics, or differ on both. A solution would be the local optimum for a person if and only if when the person encodes the problem and applies the heuristic, neither of the other solutions that the person con‐ siders has the abilities, and thus will have a few optimal locales, causing the group to be‐

Grasp and Path Relinking to Solve the Problem of Selecting Efficient Work Teams

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/53700

45

From an intuitive point of view, the conclusion that diverse groups in identity can surpass groups that are not diverse (homogeneous) due to its grand functional diversity based on the affirmation, well reception, that if the agents inside of the groups have equal individual ability to solve problems, a functional diverse group surpasses a homogeneous group. In [24] it has demonstrated that groups with functional diversity tend to surpass the best indi‐ vidual agents being that the agents in the group have the same ability. This still leaves open an important question: Can a functionally diverse group, whose members have less individ‐ ual ability, have a superior performance than the group of people that have more abilities individually? In [10] finally resolves in a affirmative manner this question, making a mathe‐ matical demonstration to this fact. Even though certain doubts still surge in a natural man‐ ner in respect to: How many members should this group have in such a way that the average diversity within the group be at its maximum?, and, can one detect which is the

This way, if considering the actual situation in which an Institution desires to hire people to solve a problem. To realize a good selection the Institution usually gives a test to the appli‐ cants, around 500, to estimate their abilities individually to solve a problem. Supposing that all the applicants are individually capable to solve them, then they have the formation and experience necessary, but have different levels of ability. It is doubtful if the Institution

**i.** The person with the highest score obtained on the test;

**iii.** 10 people selected randomly from the group of applicants;

**iv.** The 10 people most diverse in identity of the group of applicants;

**v.** The group of people most diverse on average of the group of applicants.

Ignoring the possible problems of the communication within the groups, the existing litera‐ ture suggests that (ii) is better than (i), [25],since most people will be looking in a wider space, having then more opportunities to obtain better solutions, in place of the action of the person graded best that will stay stuck in one of the optimal locations. Recently in [10] it has

**ii.** The 10 people with the highest scores;

been demonstrated formally that (iii) is better than (ii).

come stuck with one of the solutions.

group more functionally diverse?

should hire:

**6.3. How to select the most productive work team**

From a practical point of view, this result implies that, for example, a company that wants to conform a team should not look for simply a selection of individuals with a greater qualifi‐ cation for it, probably the most efficient selection would be to choose a diverse group. In re‐ ality the ideal would be that the groups of work be conformed by people with great qualifications and diversity; yet, these two objectives tend to be opposing one another since the diversity of the team formed by the people more qualified tends to be smaller, as dem‐ onstrated in [24].

The idea in the background is that we have a population of capable people to realize any task; these people have different levels of ability or of productivity for resolve it, and if one must select the work teams of this population for realizing a task, one can consider two pos‐ sible groups: in the first only individuals are chosen with high qualifications, and in the sec‐ ond "diverse" individuals are chosen in some sense It turns out that the first finish in some way arriving to the same solution, creating a more difficult and confusing work for each other, on the other hand the second group the diversity created more perspectives and thus more opportunity of avoiding a halt on the search for a solution of the problems, generating in some way the right environment to increase the individual productivity of each one, and therefore of all groups. From a formal point of view what happens in the first group, under certain hypothesis, the people that are highly qualified tend to convert into similar points of view and ways to solve problems from which the set of optimal locations that the group can reach is reduced. Although the second group of diverse members originates a set of optimal locations more widely, and thus has more opportunities to improve.

## **6.2. Diversity in identity and functional diversity, perspectives and heuristics**

In terms of a population, understood as "diversity in identity", or simply "diversity," to the differences en its demographic characteristics, cultural, ethnics, academic formation, and work experience. On the other hand, "formal diversity" is known as the differences in how these people focus and treat problem solving. An important fact is that these two types of diversity are correlated, since it has been identified experimentally a strong correlation be‐ tween two types of diversity, just as demonstrated in [25]. Given the connection, it can be deduced that diverse groups in identity are functionally diverse.

In the literature, the focus was employed on a person to resolve a problem is a representa‐ tion or an encoding of the problem in its internal language, and it can be known as "perspec‐ tive." Formally, a perspective *P* is a mapping of the set of solutions of a problem into the internal language of the person resolving a problem.

On the other hand, the way in which people attempt to resolve a problem, or how they look for solutions are known as "heuristic." Formally, a heuristic is a mapping *H* of the encoding of the solutions in an internal language of the person that will solve the prob‐ lem into the solutions set. This way, given a particular solution, the subset generated by the mapping *H* is the set of the other solutions that the person considers. In this manner, the ability to resolve the problem on behalf of a person is represented by its couple of perspective-heuristic (*P*, *H* ). Two people can differ in one of these components or in both; meaning, they can have different perspectives or different heuristics, or differ on both. A solution would be the local optimum for a person if and only if when the person encodes the problem and applies the heuristic, neither of the other solutions that the person con‐ siders has the abilities, and thus will have a few optimal locales, causing the group to be‐ come stuck with one of the solutions.

#### **6.3. How to select the most productive work team**

people that have conformed in a diverse manner can surpass the productivity of the groups conformed by the people individually more capable to resolve these problems; meaning, in

From a practical point of view, this result implies that, for example, a company that wants to conform a team should not look for simply a selection of individuals with a greater qualifi‐ cation for it, probably the most efficient selection would be to choose a diverse group. In re‐ ality the ideal would be that the groups of work be conformed by people with great qualifications and diversity; yet, these two objectives tend to be opposing one another since the diversity of the team formed by the people more qualified tends to be smaller, as dem‐

The idea in the background is that we have a population of capable people to realize any task; these people have different levels of ability or of productivity for resolve it, and if one must select the work teams of this population for realizing a task, one can consider two pos‐ sible groups: in the first only individuals are chosen with high qualifications, and in the sec‐ ond "diverse" individuals are chosen in some sense It turns out that the first finish in some way arriving to the same solution, creating a more difficult and confusing work for each other, on the other hand the second group the diversity created more perspectives and thus more opportunity of avoiding a halt on the search for a solution of the problems, generating in some way the right environment to increase the individual productivity of each one, and therefore of all groups. From a formal point of view what happens in the first group, under certain hypothesis, the people that are highly qualified tend to convert into similar points of view and ways to solve problems from which the set of optimal locations that the group can reach is reduced. Although the second group of diverse members originates a set of optimal

locations more widely, and thus has more opportunities to improve.

deduced that diverse groups in identity are functionally diverse.

internal language of the person resolving a problem.

**6.2. Diversity in identity and functional diversity, perspectives and heuristics**

In terms of a population, understood as "diversity in identity", or simply "diversity," to the differences en its demographic characteristics, cultural, ethnics, academic formation, and work experience. On the other hand, "formal diversity" is known as the differences in how these people focus and treat problem solving. An important fact is that these two types of diversity are correlated, since it has been identified experimentally a strong correlation be‐ tween two types of diversity, just as demonstrated in [25]. Given the connection, it can be

In the literature, the focus was employed on a person to resolve a problem is a representa‐ tion or an encoding of the problem in its internal language, and it can be known as "perspec‐ tive." Formally, a perspective *P* is a mapping of the set of solutions of a problem into the

On the other hand, the way in which people attempt to resolve a problem, or how they look for solutions are known as "heuristic." Formally, a heuristic is a mapping *H* of the encoding of the solutions in an internal language of the person that will solve the prob‐ lem into the solutions set. This way, given a particular solution, the subset generated by

a certain way diversity triumphant over the ability.

44 Recent Advances on Meta-Heuristics and Their Application to Real Scenarios

onstrated in [24].

From an intuitive point of view, the conclusion that diverse groups in identity can surpass groups that are not diverse (homogeneous) due to its grand functional diversity based on the affirmation, well reception, that if the agents inside of the groups have equal individual ability to solve problems, a functional diverse group surpasses a homogeneous group. In [24] it has demonstrated that groups with functional diversity tend to surpass the best indi‐ vidual agents being that the agents in the group have the same ability. This still leaves open an important question: Can a functionally diverse group, whose members have less individ‐ ual ability, have a superior performance than the group of people that have more abilities individually? In [10] finally resolves in a affirmative manner this question, making a mathe‐ matical demonstration to this fact. Even though certain doubts still surge in a natural man‐ ner in respect to: How many members should this group have in such a way that the average diversity within the group be at its maximum?, and, can one detect which is the group more functionally diverse?

This way, if considering the actual situation in which an Institution desires to hire people to solve a problem. To realize a good selection the Institution usually gives a test to the appli‐ cants, around 500, to estimate their abilities individually to solve a problem. Supposing that all the applicants are individually capable to solve them, then they have the formation and experience necessary, but have different levels of ability. It is doubtful if the Institution should hire:


Ignoring the possible problems of the communication within the groups, the existing litera‐ ture suggests that (ii) is better than (i), [25],since most people will be looking in a wider space, having then more opportunities to obtain better solutions, in place of the action of the person graded best that will stay stuck in one of the optimal locations. Recently in [10] it has been demonstrated formally that (iii) is better than (ii).

In this manner, the institution fails based on the group of people with the highest scores, meaning the most prepared individually, go on to form the best work team, and thus the company should hire (ii), since it is demonstrated as under certain hypothesis that (iii) is a better decision, as seen in [10]. The authors have come to determine that a team of peo‐ ple selected randomly have more functional diversity and under certain conditions sur‐ pass the performance of (ii). since under the set of conditions identified by the authors, the functional diversity of a group of the people that are individually capable to resolve the problem necessarily becomes smaller, which in the end, the advantage of having best abilities individually is seen as more than compensated by the greater diversity of the randomly selected group.

by transitivity, better than the group formed by the best scores (ii ) and lastly better than

Grasp and Path Relinking to Solve the Problem of Selecting Efficient Work Teams

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/53700

47

On the other hand, the literature says little or nothing at all about (v), since classically in the problems of diversity have considered the number of elements chosen as a given value, yet in the practice applications it is not clear how to choose the number of elements to be select‐ ed, and the best option would be to leave the process itself of optimization the one that dem‐ onstrates its value. This way, the focus of our analysis is centered on the dispute between the importance of the abilities of the individuals of each person in the group, their functional

A conclusion to all this is that the diversity in the organizations should be encouraged, which implies new policies, organizational forms, and styles of administration. In the con‐ text of solving a problem, the value of a person depends on their ability to improve the col‐ lective decision, since the contribution of this person depends in great measure to the perspectives and heuristics of the other people that make up the teamwork. The diversity in the focus of the solution of the problem in respect to the other people is an important predic‐ tor of its value, and in the end can be more relevant than its individual ability to solve the problem on its own. This was, to estimate the potential contribution of a person in team‐ work, it is more important to make an emphasis in measuring how this person thinks differ‐ ently, before estimating the magnitude of the ability of the person from aptitude tests or

Although one has to be more conscious of some aspects that have not been considered and that can have influence in the performance of a team of people. For illustration, the groups with diversity in identity can often have more conflicts, more problems of communication, less mutual respect and less trust amongst the members of a homogeneous groups, which can create a diminishment of performance in diverse groups. In (16) it is mentioned that the people with similar perspectives but with diverse heuristics can communicate with one an‐ other without any problem, but people with diverse perspectives can have problems when comprehending the solutions identified by the other members of the group, in this sense the best of the organizations would be to find people with similar perspectives but guarantee a diversity of heuristics, in this manner, the organizations can exploit better the benefits of the

In this section it is stated in theorem 1, demonstrated in [10], that explains the logic behind the fact that a team of people chosen at random, from a database of applicants that are capa‐ ble to solve problems, it is better than the team formed by the people more individually ca‐ pable, from there a result is established, that is immediate, being that the team of people with the most diversity surpasses the team formed by the people with the most abilities for

diversity while minimizing the costs of the lack of communication.

**6.4. Basics hypothesis and relationship between ability and diversity**

diversity (trapped by the diversity of identity), and the size of the ideal group.

simply choosing the best scored (i).

intelligence tests.

solving problems.

Figure 8 shows a scheme of the problem of selecting a team, and the options considered.

**Figure 8.** As the institution should hire?

Notice that the authors in the proof do not even use the equipment with the maximum di‐ versity, if not a randomly selected group, and even then are able to demonstrate that it is better, thanks to the greater diversity inherent in the random group next to the group with the most abilities individually. Here we prove in the corollary of the theorem 2, that if select‐ ing the group with more diversity on average, this is to say hire the group formed according to (iv), this would result more productive than hiring than that formed randomly (iii), and, by transitivity, better than the group formed by the best scores (ii ) and lastly better than simply choosing the best scored (i).

In this manner, the institution fails based on the group of people with the highest scores, meaning the most prepared individually, go on to form the best work team, and thus the company should hire (ii), since it is demonstrated as under certain hypothesis that (iii) is a better decision, as seen in [10]. The authors have come to determine that a team of peo‐ ple selected randomly have more functional diversity and under certain conditions sur‐ pass the performance of (ii). since under the set of conditions identified by the authors, the functional diversity of a group of the people that are individually capable to resolve the problem necessarily becomes smaller, which in the end, the advantage of having best abilities individually is seen as more than compensated by the greater diversity of the

46 Recent Advances on Meta-Heuristics and Their Application to Real Scenarios

Figure 8 shows a scheme of the problem of selecting a team, and the options considered.

Notice that the authors in the proof do not even use the equipment with the maximum di‐ versity, if not a randomly selected group, and even then are able to demonstrate that it is better, thanks to the greater diversity inherent in the random group next to the group with the most abilities individually. Here we prove in the corollary of the theorem 2, that if select‐ ing the group with more diversity on average, this is to say hire the group formed according to (iv), this would result more productive than hiring than that formed randomly (iii), and,

**SELECTION** 

**Highest rated** 

**Top rated team** 

**Randomly chosen team** 

**Maximum mean diversity team** 

randomly selected group.

**POPULATION** 

**Figure 8.** As the institution should hire?

On the other hand, the literature says little or nothing at all about (v), since classically in the problems of diversity have considered the number of elements chosen as a given value, yet in the practice applications it is not clear how to choose the number of elements to be select‐ ed, and the best option would be to leave the process itself of optimization the one that dem‐ onstrates its value. This way, the focus of our analysis is centered on the dispute between the importance of the abilities of the individuals of each person in the group, their functional diversity (trapped by the diversity of identity), and the size of the ideal group.

A conclusion to all this is that the diversity in the organizations should be encouraged, which implies new policies, organizational forms, and styles of administration. In the con‐ text of solving a problem, the value of a person depends on their ability to improve the col‐ lective decision, since the contribution of this person depends in great measure to the perspectives and heuristics of the other people that make up the teamwork. The diversity in the focus of the solution of the problem in respect to the other people is an important predic‐ tor of its value, and in the end can be more relevant than its individual ability to solve the problem on its own. This was, to estimate the potential contribution of a person in team‐ work, it is more important to make an emphasis in measuring how this person thinks differ‐ ently, before estimating the magnitude of the ability of the person from aptitude tests or intelligence tests.

Although one has to be more conscious of some aspects that have not been considered and that can have influence in the performance of a team of people. For illustration, the groups with diversity in identity can often have more conflicts, more problems of communication, less mutual respect and less trust amongst the members of a homogeneous groups, which can create a diminishment of performance in diverse groups. In (16) it is mentioned that the people with similar perspectives but with diverse heuristics can communicate with one an‐ other without any problem, but people with diverse perspectives can have problems when comprehending the solutions identified by the other members of the group, in this sense the best of the organizations would be to find people with similar perspectives but guarantee a diversity of heuristics, in this manner, the organizations can exploit better the benefits of the diversity while minimizing the costs of the lack of communication.

## **6.4. Basics hypothesis and relationship between ability and diversity**

In this section it is stated in theorem 1, demonstrated in [10], that explains the logic behind the fact that a team of people chosen at random, from a database of applicants that are capa‐ ble to solve problems, it is better than the team formed by the people more individually ca‐ pable, from there a result is established, that is immediate, being that the team of people with the most diversity surpasses the team formed by the people with the most abilities for solving problems.

To establish a theoretic result, consider the population from where the team will be selected, this is to say the applicants, represented with con Φ with to satisfy the following suppositions

Hypothesis 1 indicates that given the initial solution the people always try to find better sol‐ utions, but never select the worst solution, and get stuck in the optimal locale. Hypothesis 2 implies that no one, individually, can reach the optimum always from any point. In hypoth‐ esis 3, it is established in a simple manner that the essence of diversity, when a person is stuck in an local optimum always has someone that can find the best due to a different fo‐ cus. Hypothesis 4 establishes that within the set of applicants considering that a better

Grasp and Path Relinking to Solve the Problem of Selecting Efficient Work Teams

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/53700

49

**THEOREM 1:** Being Φ a set of people that satisfy the hypothesis 1–4. And being *μ* his prob‐ ability distribution. Then, with probability 1, positive integers *N* y *N*1, *N* > *N*<sup>1</sup> , just like the performance of the set of *N*<sup>1</sup> people selected at random surpasses the performance of the set of the *N*<sup>1</sup> individually more capable, taken from the group of *N* people independently chos‐

The theorem shows that a randomly selected group works better than a group formed for the better, is an immediate extender of the results as presented in the following corollary, which is demonstrated here, in which it is established more directly in relation between the

**COROLLARY:** If Φ is a set of people that satisfy the hypothesis of the theorem 1, then, with probability 1, positive integers *N* and *N*1, *N* > *N*1 exist and that which the performance of the set of the group of *N*1 people that maximize {*div*(*M* ), *M* ⊂Φ, |*M* |= *N*1} exceeds the overall performance of the *N*1 people individually more capable, taken of the group of *N*

The proof is immediate, since the theorem is based that the diversity of the set of people ran‐ domly selected is more diverse than the set of people with the most individual abilities. This way, if selecting the group of people most diverse, helps this surpass the performance of the group of people selected randomly, due to the major diversity of the first, and for theorem 1, this last group surpasses the performance of the group formed by the people with more abil‐

Finally, we apply the method solving a real instance. In particular we apply them to obtain a diverse assembly of professors from a set of n=586 in the ESPOL University at Guayaquil (Ecuador). For each professor, we record 7 attributes (tenure position, gender, academic de‐ gree, research level, background, salary level, and department), and the similarity measure between each pair of them is computed with the modified difference measure described in the equation 3. The solution obtained with our GRASP+PR method in 127.1 seconds has 90 professors and a similarity value of 1.11. Table 4 it is shown that the results detailed and

ities individually. It continues as transitivity the result that is shown in the corollary.

unique performance exists. With these hypotheses, the theorem 1 is proved in [10].

en according to *μ*.

diversity and ability.

*Proof:*

people independently chosen according to *μ*.

**6.5. Resolution of a case study**

each one of the 10 trials.


If we consider a team of applicants chosen randomly from Φ to according to some distribu‐ tion, the theorem establishes what, with probability 1, sample sizes *N*1 and *N* exist, *N*<sup>1</sup> < *N* , just like in the collective performance of the team of the *N*1 applicants chosen at random surpasses the collective performance of the *N*1 best applicants.

To formulate the theorem 1 more precisely, consider *X* the solution set of the problem, a function that gives the value of each solution *V* : *X* → 0,1 , supposing as well that *V* it has the only maximum *x \** , and that *V* (*x \**) =1. Each applicant *ϕ* beings from the initial solution *x* and uses the search rule to find the maximum, but is not always found, if not generally gets stuck in a local optimum, if *ϕ*(*x*) is the local optimum when the applicant *ϕ* starts his search in *x*. This way *ϕ*(*X* ) represents the local optimal set for the applicant *ϕ*.

Each applicant is characterized by the pair (*ϕ*, *ν*), ), and an estimation of the performance as the value expected of the search by treating the solving of the problem, represented by *E*(*V* ;*ϕ*, *ν*) ; this is to say that,

$$E\left(V; \phi\_{\nu}, \nu\right) = \sum\_{\boldsymbol{\nu} \in X} V\left(\phi\left(\boldsymbol{\chi}\right)\right) \nu(\boldsymbol{\chi})$$

The hypothesis should be satisfies by the applicants *ϕ*, with which the theorem is demon‐ strated through the following:

**HYPOTHESIS 1** (Consistency):

**i.** ∀ *x* ∈ *X* :*V* (*ϕ*(*x*))≥*V* (*x*)

**ii.** ∀ *x* ∈ *X* :*ϕ*(*ϕ*(*x*))=*ϕ*(*x*)

**HYPOTHESIS 2** (Difficulty):

∀*ϕ* ∈Φ, ∃ *x* ∈ *X* :*ϕ*(*x*)≠ *x*

**HYPOTHESIS 3** (Diversity):

∀ *x* ∈ *X* ∖ {*x \**}, ∃*ϕ* ∈Φ:*ϕ*(*x*)≠ *x*

**HYPOTHESIS 4** (Uniqueness):

arg max {*E*(*V* ;*ϕ*, *ν*):*ϕ* ∈Φ} is unique

Hypothesis 1 indicates that given the initial solution the people always try to find better sol‐ utions, but never select the worst solution, and get stuck in the optimal locale. Hypothesis 2 implies that no one, individually, can reach the optimum always from any point. In hypoth‐ esis 3, it is established in a simple manner that the essence of diversity, when a person is stuck in an local optimum always has someone that can find the best due to a different fo‐ cus. Hypothesis 4 establishes that within the set of applicants considering that a better unique performance exists. With these hypotheses, the theorem 1 is proved in [10].

**THEOREM 1:** Being Φ a set of people that satisfy the hypothesis 1–4. And being *μ* his prob‐ ability distribution. Then, with probability 1, positive integers *N* y *N*1, *N* > *N*<sup>1</sup> , just like the performance of the set of *N*<sup>1</sup> people selected at random surpasses the performance of the set of the *N*<sup>1</sup> individually more capable, taken from the group of *N* people independently chos‐ en according to *μ*.

The theorem shows that a randomly selected group works better than a group formed for the better, is an immediate extender of the results as presented in the following corollary, which is demonstrated here, in which it is established more directly in relation between the diversity and ability.

**COROLLARY:** If Φ is a set of people that satisfy the hypothesis of the theorem 1, then, with probability 1, positive integers *N* and *N*1, *N* > *N*1 exist and that which the performance of the set of the group of *N*1 people that maximize {*div*(*M* ), *M* ⊂Φ, |*M* |= *N*1} exceeds the overall performance of the *N*1 people individually more capable, taken of the group of *N* people independently chosen according to *μ*.

*Proof:*

To establish a theoretic result, consider the population from where the team will be selected, this is to say the applicants, represented with con Φ with to satisfy the following suppositions **•** The applicants are trained to solve the problem. Given the initial solution, the applicants

**•** The problem is difficult, none of the applicants can find the optimal solution always;

**•** The applicants are diverse, and therefore for any potential solution that is not the optimal,

If we consider a team of applicants chosen randomly from Φ to according to some distribu‐ tion, the theorem establishes what, with probability 1, sample sizes *N*1 and *N* exist, *N*<sup>1</sup> < *N* , just like in the collective performance of the team of the *N*1 applicants chosen at random

To formulate the theorem 1 more precisely, consider *X* the solution set of the problem, a function that gives the value of each solution *V* : *X* → 0,1 , supposing as well that *V* it has

and uses the search rule to find the maximum, but is not always found, if not generally gets stuck in a local optimum, if *ϕ*(*x*) is the local optimum when the applicant *ϕ* starts his search

Each applicant is characterized by the pair (*ϕ*, *ν*), ), and an estimation of the performance as the value expected of the search by treating the solving of the problem, represented by

The hypothesis should be satisfies by the applicants *ϕ*, with which the theorem is demon‐

, and that *V* (*x \**) =1. Each applicant *ϕ* beings from the initial solution *x*

can find a better solution, even if it is only a little better;

48 Recent Advances on Meta-Heuristics and Their Application to Real Scenarios

surpasses the collective performance of the *N*1 best applicants.

in *x*. This way *ϕ*(*X* ) represents the local optimal set for the applicant *ϕ*.

at least one applicant can find the best solution;

**•** The best applicant is the only one.

the only maximum *x \**

*E*(*V* ;*ϕ*, *ν*) ; this is to say that,

*V* (*ϕ*(*x*))*ν*(*x*)

*x*∈*X*

strated through the following:

**HYPOTHESIS 1** (Consistency): **i.** ∀ *x* ∈ *X* :*V* (*ϕ*(*x*))≥*V* (*x*)

**ii.** ∀ *x* ∈ *X* :*ϕ*(*ϕ*(*x*))=*ϕ*(*x*)

**HYPOTHESIS 2** (Difficulty):

**HYPOTHESIS 3** (Diversity):

∀ *x* ∈ *X* ∖ {*x \**}, ∃*ϕ* ∈Φ:*ϕ*(*x*)≠ *x*

**HYPOTHESIS 4** (Uniqueness):

arg max {*E*(*V* ;*ϕ*, *ν*):*ϕ* ∈Φ} is unique

∀*ϕ* ∈Φ, ∃ *x* ∈ *X* :*ϕ*(*x*)≠ *x*

*E*(*V* ;*ϕ*, *ν*)= ∑

The proof is immediate, since the theorem is based that the diversity of the set of people ran‐ domly selected is more diverse than the set of people with the most individual abilities. This way, if selecting the group of people most diverse, helps this surpass the performance of the group of people selected randomly, due to the major diversity of the first, and for theorem 1, this last group surpasses the performance of the group formed by the people with more abil‐ ities individually. It continues as transitivity the result that is shown in the corollary.

## **6.5. Resolution of a case study**

Finally, we apply the method solving a real instance. In particular we apply them to obtain a diverse assembly of professors from a set of n=586 in the ESPOL University at Guayaquil (Ecuador). For each professor, we record 7 attributes (tenure position, gender, academic de‐ gree, research level, background, salary level, and department), and the similarity measure between each pair of them is computed with the modified difference measure described in the equation 3. The solution obtained with our GRASP+PR method in 127.1 seconds has 90 professors and a similarity value of 1.11. Table 4 it is shown that the results detailed and each one of the 10 trials.


large instances. The focus of our future research will be on the development of multi-objec‐ tive optimization that attempts to balance efficiency or ability and diversity, namely a study on the selection of the best and most diverse, which gives a flexible and interactive way for

Grasp and Path Relinking to Solve the Problem of Selecting Efficient Work Teams

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/53700

51

1 Institute of Mathematics, Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral (ESPOL), Guayaquil,

2 Facultad de Ingeniería, Departamento de Sistemas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de

[1] E. Ercut and S. Neuman, "Analytic Models for locating undesirable facilities," Euro‐

[2] F. Glover, C. Kuo, and K. S. Dhir, "A discrete optimization model for preserving bio‐

[3] F. Glover, C. C. Kuo, and K. Dhir, "Heuristic Algorithms for the Maximum Diversity Problem," Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 109 -

[4] K. Katayama and H. Narihisa, "An Evolutionary Approach for the Maximum Diver‐ sity Problem," Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, vol. 166, pp. 31-47, 2005. [5] E. Erkut, "The discrete p-dispersion problem," European Journal of Operational Re‐

[6] R. Martí and F. Sandoya, "GRASP and path relinking for the equitable dispersion problem," Computers and Operations Research, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.

[7] M. Lozano, D. Molina, and C. García-Martínez, "Iterated greedy for the maximum di‐

[8] Thorsten Meinl, Maximum-Score Diversity Selection, primera ed.: Südwestdeutscher

[9] M. Kuo, F. Glover, and K. Dhir, "Analyzing and modeling the maximum diversity problem by zero-one programming," Decision Sciences, no. 24, pp. 1171 - 1185, 1993.

versity problem," European Journal of Operational Research, 2011.

pean Journal of Operational Research, vol. 40, pp. 275-291, 1989.

logical diversity," Appl. Math. Modeling, vol. 19, pp. 696 - 701, 1995.

decision makers to make the tradeoff between ability and diversity.

**Author details**

Ecuador

México

**References**

132, 1998.

search, vol. 46, pp. 48-60, 1990.

2012.04.005, 2012.

Verlag, 2010.

Fernando Sandoya1\* and Ricardo Aceves2\*

\*Address all correspondence to: fsandoya@espol.edu.ec

**Table 4.** Average results about the 10 successive runs

## **7. Conclusions**

The main result of this paper provides conditions under which, a diverse group of people will outperform a group of the best. Our result provides insights into the trade-off between diversity and ability. An ideal work team would contain high-ability problem solvers who are diverse.

According to our approach, the problem of designing the most efficient work team is equiv‐ alent to the maximum diversity problem, wich is a computationally difficult, In particular we study the solution of the Max-Mean model that arises in the context of equitable disper‐ sion problems. It has served us well as test case for a few new search strategies that we are proposing. In particular, we tested a GRASP constructive algorithm based on a non-stand‐ ard combination of greediness and randomization, a local search strategy based on the vari‐ able neighborhood descent methodology, which includes three different neighborhoods, and a path relinking post-processing.

We performed extensive computational experiments to first study the effect of changes in critical search elements and then to compare the efficiency of our proposal with previous solution procedures.

The principles of the proposed equity measure can be applied to solve the problem of select‐ ing efficient work teams. Therefore, more research is necessary in this area, especially to solve the subproblem to measure diversity. The results from a comparative study carried out with the other algorithms favor the procedure that we proposed, also is able to solve large instances. The focus of our future research will be on the development of multi-objec‐ tive optimization that attempts to balance efficiency or ability and diversity, namely a study on the selection of the best and most diverse, which gives a flexible and interactive way for decision makers to make the tradeoff between ability and diversity.

## **Author details**

**TRIAL**

**Table 4.** Average results about the 10 successive runs

50 Recent Advances on Meta-Heuristics and Their Application to Real Scenarios

and a path relinking post-processing.

solution procedures.

**7. Conclusions**

are diverse.

**GRASP+PR GRASP CPU time Value** *m* **CPU time Value** *m*

 127.094 1.11542 101 116.631 1.09397 90 125.081 1.11393 100 113.7384 1.09487 96 120.028 1.10484 96 111.7161 1.07699 86 115.622 1.10311 92 113.4575 1.09058 88 114.616 1.10251 94 119.4957 1.09844 101 139.309 1.10811 96 126.6417 1.08316 95 123.162 1.12293 100 128.5092 1.03239 86 134.082 1.12600 100 119.378 1.05797 92 125.688 1.12033 101 109.6741 1.07982 97 134.566 1.11090 97 101.3805 1.05701 107 **MEAN 125.9248 1.11281 97.7 116.06222 1.07652 93.8**

The main result of this paper provides conditions under which, a diverse group of people will outperform a group of the best. Our result provides insights into the trade-off between diversity and ability. An ideal work team would contain high-ability problem solvers who

According to our approach, the problem of designing the most efficient work team is equiv‐ alent to the maximum diversity problem, wich is a computationally difficult, In particular we study the solution of the Max-Mean model that arises in the context of equitable disper‐ sion problems. It has served us well as test case for a few new search strategies that we are proposing. In particular, we tested a GRASP constructive algorithm based on a non-stand‐ ard combination of greediness and randomization, a local search strategy based on the vari‐ able neighborhood descent methodology, which includes three different neighborhoods,

We performed extensive computational experiments to first study the effect of changes in critical search elements and then to compare the efficiency of our proposal with previous

The principles of the proposed equity measure can be applied to solve the problem of select‐ ing efficient work teams. Therefore, more research is necessary in this area, especially to solve the subproblem to measure diversity. The results from a comparative study carried out with the other algorithms favor the procedure that we proposed, also is able to solve

Fernando Sandoya1\* and Ricardo Aceves2\*

\*Address all correspondence to: fsandoya@espol.edu.ec

1 Institute of Mathematics, Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral (ESPOL), Guayaquil, Ecuador

2 Facultad de Ingeniería, Departamento de Sistemas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

## **References**


[10] Scott Page and Lu Hong, "Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers," PNAS, vol. 101, no. 46, pp. 16385 - 16389, 2004.

**Chapter 3**

**Meta-Heuristic Optimization Techniques and**

Robotics is the science of perceiving and manipulating the physical world. Perceive informa‐ tion on their envioronments through sensors, and manipulate through physical forces. To do diversity tasks, robots have tobe able to accomodate the ennormous uncertainty that exist in the physical world. The level of uncertainty depends on the application domain. In some robotics applications, such as assembly lines, humans can cleverly engineer the system so that uncertainty is only a marginal factor. In contrast, robots operating in residential homes, militar operates or on other planets will have to cope with substantial uncertainty. Managing uncertainty is possibly the most important step towards robust real-world robot system.

If considerate that, for reduce the uncertainty divide the problem in two problems, where is the first is to robot perception, and another, to planning and control. Likewise, path planning is an important issue in mobile robotics. It is to find a most reasonable collision-free path a mobile ro‐ bot to move from a start location to a destination in an envioroment with obstacles. This path is commonly optimal in some aspect, such as distance or time. How to find a path meeting the

Optimization techniques are search methods, where the goal is to find a solution to an optimiza‐ tion problem, such that a given quantity is optimized, possibly subject to a set of constraints. Modern optimization techniques start to demonstrate their power in dealing with hard optimi‐ zation problems in robotics and automation such as manufacturing cells formation, robot mo‐ tion planning, worker scheduling, cell assignment, vehicle routing problem, assembly line balancing, shortest sequence planning, sensor placement, unmanned-aerial vehicles (UAV) communication relaying and multirobot coordination to name just a few. By example, in parti‐ cle, path planning it is a difficult task in robotics, as well as construct and control a robot. The main propose of path planning is find a specific route in order to reach the target destination.

> © 2013 Cruz-Bernal; licensee InTech. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use,

© 2013 Cruz-Bernal; licensee InTech. This is a paper distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

need of such criterion and escaping from obstacles is the key problem in path planning.

**Its Applications in Robotics**

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

Alejandra Cruz-Bernal

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54460

**1. Introduction**

