local search quality of the results modified

IEncinas10 · Nov 24, 2022 · 7eb3b3a · 7eb3b3a
1 parent a09a9e6
commit 7eb3b3a
Show file tree

Hide file tree

Showing 4 changed files with 3 additions and 3 deletions.
diff --git a/report/report.pdf b/report/report.pdf
diff --git a/report/report.tex b/report/report.tex
@@ -332,9 +332,9 @@ \subsection{Objective function}
 
 Naturally, greedy offers the worst solution for every instance, while taking practically the same time as Greedy + Local Search. Then, we can conclude that the basic Greedy method shouldn't be used in any case.
 
-Local Search offers great improvement for some instances, but in the majority of the cases it offers a poor solution compared with the optimal one.
+Local Search offers great improvement for every instance, but the quality of the solutions is noticeably lower than GRASP's.
 
-GRASP commonly reachs the optimal solution. It obviously does not find it every time but if we're not too concerned with optimality is a great improvement over Local Search.
+GRASP commonly reachs the optimal solution. It obviously does not find it every time but if we're not too concerned with optimality is a good improvement over Local Search.
 
 
 \clearpage

diff --git a/slides/main.pdf b/slides/main.pdf
diff --git a/slides/main.tex b/slides/main.tex
@@ -398,7 +398,7 @@ \subsection{Quality of solutions}
 	\begin{itemize}
 	    \item Greedy offers the worst solution for every instance
 	    \item Greedy + Local Search improves the quality of the solution taking practically the same time as Greedy.
-      \item GRASP commonly reachs the optimal solution, having a great improvement over Local  Search.
+      \item GRASP commonly reachs the optimal solution, having a good improvement over Local  Search.
 	\end{itemize}
     \end{minipage}
     \hfill