To answer some of the questions and address some of the issues raised ... I'm not the author, not connected with the author, and don't know the author. I foun

To answer some of the questions and address some of the issues raised ... I'm not the author, not connected with the author, and don't know the author. I found the "paper" and thought "That's neat and elegant." Yes, we could do with a complete analysis of all existing algorithms and heuristics, finding the strengths and weaknesses, and for each one, finding and characterising cases where they do well and cases where they do badly. But personally, I like to see papers like this, papers that can be considered to be a "work in progress." I don't want only to read about studies that are exhaustive, complete, and answer all the questions. I think there is value in seeing descriptions of algorithms, along with a simple comparison to known algorithms largely for the purpose of understanding the detail and the potential. This is an invitation to explore, not a closed and completed "job done." This is an invitation to Google for other heuristics to enhance my understanding of the field. This is an invitation to wonder if my unique range of experience and skills might find a better heuristic. Full analysis is the work of a Ph.D. and more. Don't expect it in a paper on the web.