Compact, Provably-Good LPs for Orienteering and Regret-Bounded Vehicle Routing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We develop polynomial-size LP-relaxations for {\em orienteering} and the {\em regret-bounded vehicle routing problem} (\rvrp) and devise suitable LP-rounding algorithms that lead to various new insights and approximation results for these problems. In orienteering, the goal is to find a maximum-reward $r$-rooted path, possibly ending at a specified node, of length at most some given budget $B$. In \rvrp, the goal is to find the minimum number of $r$-rooted paths of {\em regret} at most a given bound $R$ that cover all nodes, where the regret of an $r$-$v$ path is its length $-$ $c_{rv}$. For {\em rooted orienteering}, we introduce a natural bidirected LP-relaxation and obtain a simple $3$-approximation algorithm via LP-rounding. This is the {\em first LP-based} guarantee for this problem. We also show that {\em point-to-point} (\ptp) {\em orienteering} can be reduced to a regret-version of rooted orienteering at the expense of a factor-2 loss in approximation. For \rvrp, we propose two compact LPs that lead to significant improvements, in both approximation ratio and running time, over the approach in~\cite{FriggstadS14}. One of these is a natural modification of the LP for rooted orienteering; the other is an unconventional formulation that is motivated by certain structural properties of an \rvrp-solution, which leads to a $15$-approximation algorithm for \rvrp.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it