MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1500616748 · doi:10.1109/tnn.2003.811562

A Kohonen-like decomposition method for the euclidean traveling salesman problem - KNIES_DECOMPOSE

2003· article· en· W1500616748 on OpenAlexaff
Necati Aras, İ. Kuban Altınel, B. John Oommen

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTravelling salesman problemBottleneck traveling salesman problemEuclidean geometry2-optSelf-organizing mapHeuristicEuclidean distancePartition (number theory)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceArtificial neural networkTraveling purchaser problemMathematicsDecompositionAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In addition to the classical heuristic algorithms of operations research, there have also been several approaches based on artificial neural networks for solving the traveling salesman problem. Their efficiency, however, decreases as the problem size (number of cities) increases. A technique to reduce the complexity of a large-scale traveling salesman problem (TSP) instance is to decompose or partition it into smaller subproblems. We introduce an all-neural decomposition heuristic that is based on a recent self-organizing map called KNIES, which has been successfully implemented for solving both the Euclidean traveling salesman problem and the Euclidean Hamiltonian path problem. Our solution for the Euclidean TSP proceeds by solving the Euclidean HPP for the subproblems, and then patching these solutions together. No such all-neural solution has ever been reported.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Neural NetworksSame topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207