← Back to Data Sets

Supplementary Webpage

Base selection and synchronized home-care routing under shared travel disruptions: An exact formulation and a matheuristic

Benchmark adaptations from Mankowska, Meisel and Bierwirth (2014) and Kummer Neto (2021). Original data attribution and terms are retained. The linked files are the adapted RBSSRP instances used by this study.

Data and table notes

Benchmark instances

The collection concerns the Robust Base Selection and Synchronized Routing Problem (RBSSRP). Sizes 10 and 25 contain 12 instances each; sizes 50, 100, 200, and 300 contain six each. Sizes refer to the original source patient counts, before adaptation, and can differ from retained patient and service-task counts.

Files follow RBSSRP_<size>_<group><number>.json, for example RBSSRP_010_M01.json. The three-digit size is followed by M for Mankowska, H for the Kummer author-labeled hardest collection, or R for the Kummer sample, and a two-digit study index. Source labels do not classify difficulty for RBSSRP.

Click an instance name to open its adapted problem data in JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format in a new tab; the browser may download it instead. All instances use four shared disruption factors, a global uncertainty budget Γ = 1, and travel-deviation rate 0.15.

Reading the comparison

Objective is daily base activation cost plus nominal travel cost, expressed in nominal-travel-time equivalents. Gurobi uses one run per instance. The matheuristic reports its best objective and mean ± sample standard deviation (SD) across ten independent seeds.

Bound gap. The Gurobi mixed-integer programming (MIP) gap and the matheuristic gap use a feasible objective U and the same instance’s final Gurobi global lower bound L: Gap (%) = 100 × max(0, U − L) / |U|. Matheuristic gaps are computed for each seed before averaging. These use the external global bound, not bounds from restricted subproblems.

Δ (%) is the percentage reduction in the ten-seed mean objective relative to Gurobi: 100 × (Gurobi objective − mean matheuristic objective) / Gurobi objective. Positive values indicate improvement. Size-specific mean rows weight instances equally.

Instance data conventions and experimental settings

Each JSON specifies visits with hard common-start windows, deterministic service durations and caregiver eligibility, caregiver shifts, base endpoints, opening costs and capacities, compulsory openings, a directed nominal travel matrix, endpoint exposure zones, and shared-factor uncertainty. A two-task visit requires two distinct caregivers starting together. All entity IDs and matrix indices are zero-based. Headquarters (base 0) is compulsory, and each active caregiver starts and returns at its assigned base.

Divide timing and opening-cost ticks by time_scale to obtain source time units and travel-equivalent costs. A journey receives ceil(rate × nominal travel ticks) on each distinct endpoint zone; a common endpoint zone is counted once. Factor intensities lie in [0, 1] and sum to at most gamma. Unused matrix locations are removed through consistent reindexing; all retained directed durations are unchanged. Original source identifiers remain in the JSON.

Per-run limits are 600 seconds for sizes 10 and 25, 1,800 seconds for sizes 50 and 100, and 3,600 seconds for sizes 200 and 300. Both methods use one solver thread and 128 GiB of memory. At size 10, the matheuristic’s full-workforce mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) call provides a global certificate. At size 25, all twelve Gurobi runs prove optimality and all 120 matheuristic runs attain the corresponding optimum; 102 matheuristic runs provide their own full-model certificate and 18 stop adaptively without their own certificate. At size 50, Gurobi proves the optimum on RBSSRP_050_H02; five of its ten matheuristic runs attain this externally certified optimum, while all ten stop through adaptive stagnation without their own certificate. Adaptive stagnation alone is not an optimality proof. The linked files contain mathematical inputs; reproducing the recorded algorithm runs also requires the research package’s common initialization, seeds, software, and experimental settings.

Reporting status. Results are available for source sizes 10, 25, 50, 100, 200 and 300. A dash marks an unavailable or inapplicable metric.

Solution quality

Scroll the table to view all instance sets and columns.

Final objectives and global bounds for all 48 evaluation instances, grouped by original source size.
Instance · JSONGurobiMatheuristic · 10 seeds
ObjectiveGlobal lower boundMIP gap (%)Best objectiveMean ± SDΔ (%)Gap to bound (%)
Source size 1012 instances
380.491380.4910.00380.491380.491 ± 0.0000.000.00
363.969363.9690.00363.969363.969 ± 0.0000.000.00
491.798491.7980.00491.798491.798 ± 0.0000.000.00
432.376432.3760.00432.376432.376 ± 0.0000.000.00
277.500277.5000.00277.500277.500 ± 0.0000.000.00
199.500199.5000.00199.500199.500 ± 0.0000.000.00
84.00084.0000.0084.00084.000 ± 0.0000.000.00
267.000267.0000.00267.000267.000 ± 0.0000.000.00
156.250156.2500.00156.250156.250 ± 0.0000.000.00
245.500245.5000.00245.500245.500 ± 0.0000.000.00
165.000165.0000.00165.000165.000 ± 0.0000.000.00
189.500189.5000.00189.500189.500 ± 0.0000.000.00
Size 10 mean——0.00——0.000.00
Source size 2512 instances
1,072.9251,072.9250.001,072.9251,072.925 ± 0.0000.000.00
851.156851.1560.00851.156851.156 ± 0.0000.000.00
823.005823.0050.00823.005823.005 ± 0.0000.000.00
949.439949.4390.00949.439949.439 ± 0.0000.000.00
538.000538.0000.00538.000538.000 ± 0.0000.000.00
465.000465.0000.00465.000465.000 ± 0.0000.000.00
397.500397.5000.00397.500397.500 ± 0.0000.000.00
512.500512.5000.00512.500512.500 ± 0.0000.000.00
314.000314.0000.00314.000314.000 ± 0.0000.000.00
432.000432.0000.00432.000432.000 ± 0.0000.000.00
556.000556.0000.00556.000556.000 ± 0.0000.000.00
537.500537.5000.00537.500537.500 ± 0.0000.000.00
Size 25 mean——0.00——0.000.00
Source size 506 instances
999.51969.852.97998.741,013.15 ± 22.83-1.364.23
1,012.30996.451.571,012.301,012.52 ± 0.47-0.021.59
785.00655.0016.56745.00749.80 ± 3.124.4812.64
628.00628.000.00628.00632.00 ± 4.47-0.640.63
419.00391.256.62416.00417.30 ± 1.160.416.24
557.75537.753.59557.75563.42 ± 5.95-1.024.55
Size 50 mean——5.22——0.314.98
Source size 1006 instances
1,749.531,376.6821.311,685.691,712.31 ± 33.382.1319.57
1,402.821,248.7010.991,396.151,415.65 ± 21.44-0.9111.78
744.00547.0026.48676.00698.00 ± 14.026.1821.60
822.00550.0033.09625.00647.40 ± 25.4921.2414.93
1,056.50871.5017.511,004.501,034.00 ± 21.102.1315.68
1,013.00809.0020.14943.00996.20 ± 47.731.6618.63
Size 100 mean——21.59——5.4017.03
Source size 2006 instances
2,419.541,708.3829.392,235.442,318.78 ± 59.944.1626.28
2,724.691,805.8133.722,461.702,554.93 ± 68.056.2329.28
1,341.00911.5032.031,203.001,251.00 ± 30.936.7127.10
1,023.00706.0030.99961.00985.70 ± 13.803.6528.36
1,979.001,333.5032.621,829.001,883.45 ± 46.354.8329.16
887.00657.0025.93840.00872.40 ± 15.021.6524.67
Size 200 mean——30.78——4.5427.47
Source size 3006 instances
4,241.982,105.5150.362,966.193,200.36 ± 186.3224.5634.01
4,573.922,137.5853.273,279.983,406.22 ± 72.7525.5337.22
2,243.00978.0056.401,777.001,830.40 ± 38.5718.4046.55
2,337.001,000.0057.211,645.001,686.60 ± 22.2927.8340.70
4,603.001,630.0064.592,808.002,908.40 ± 78.2436.8243.92
1,856.00843.0054.581,519.001,564.20 ± 31.2015.7246.09
Size 300 mean——56.07——24.8141.41

References

  1. Mankowska, D. S., Meisel, F., and Bierwirth, C. (2014). The home health care routing and scheduling problem with interdependent services. Health Care Management Science, 17(1), 15–30. DOI: 10.1007/s10729-013-9243-1
  2. Kummer Neto, A. F. (2021). A new curated benchmark dataset for the home health care problem. GitHub data repository. Repository: https://github.com/afkummer/hhcrsp-dataset-2021 Source snapshot: 262c7b89938ca817b927d4287e709252844b63fd