Harun Pirim

§ Computational time vs solution quality – trade off

§ Trivial or inferior moves are allowed for better future solutions hopefully
§ SA escapes entrapment at local optimum using a probability condition that accepts
or rejects an inferior move
§ No worse move is always accepted
§ Iterations increase then SA becomes more selective
§ Temprature (T) based on a schedule
§ T0 is r0F(s0) where r is between 0-1
§ Ti is riTi-1 where i = 1,2,…,I
§ Sa last accepted move
§ At iteration k the probability of accepting a neighborhood solution sk+1

1, 𝑖𝑓 𝐹 𝑠)*+ 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝐹(𝑠; )

§ 𝑃 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑝𝑡 𝑠)*+ 𝑠)*+ ∈ 𝑁 𝑠) =/ = >(?@ )=>(?ABC )
𝑒 D 𝑜/𝑤
§ Inferior move probability is compared with a random number:
§ Accept if
§ Rk is less than or equal to Inferior move probability
3
4
§ 𝑥 ∈ 1, … , 8
§ 𝑦 ∈ {1, … , 10}
§ 𝑧 ∈ 1, … , 10
§ 𝑥 ≠ 7, 𝑦 ≠ 2, 𝑥 − 𝑦 = 3𝑧
§ 800 possible solutions
§ Reduce solution space
§ Min x is 4
§ Max y is 5
§ Max z is 2