You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
local pruningshould work fine, but its implementation in Algorithm 1: RAPTOR seems bad so it doesn't work properly.
Indeed, line 18, the check is only done by comparing the arrival time with τ* and not t_k (which is expected) ; but τ* isn't updated when checking for foot-paths, τ_k is the only one assigned.
So back to the comparison line 18, paths found thanks to foot-paths aren't taken into account.
This eventually leads to cyclic paths, and produces wrong shortest paths.
local pruning
issue in original paperProblem
local pruning
should work fine, but its implementation inAlgorithm 1: RAPTOR
seems bad so it doesn't work properly.Indeed, line
18
, the check is only done by comparing the arrival time withτ*
and nott_k
(which is expected) ; butτ*
isn't updated when checking for foot-paths,τ_k
is the only one assigned.So back to the comparison line
18
, paths found thanks to foot-paths aren't taken into account.This eventually leads to cyclic paths, and produces wrong shortest paths.
Source : RAPTOR.
Solution
Remove
local pruning
improvment.Illustrating
Branch no-local-pruning shows a version of RAPTOR without any
local pruning
upgrade, theoretically working.Branches test-bibm and test-bibm-no-local-pruning implement tests based on BIBM data, demonstrating the issue.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: