Combining Reinforcement Learning and Constraint Programming for Combinatorial Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Combinatorial optimization has found applications in numerous fields, from aerospace to transportation planning and economics. The goal is to find an optimal solution among a finite set of possibilities. The well-known challenge one faces with combinatorial optimization is the state-space explosion problem: the number of possibilities grows exponentially with the problem size, which makes solving intractable for large problems. In the last years, deep reinforcement learning (DRL) has shown its promise for designing good heuristics dedicated to solve NP-hard combinatorial optimization problems. However, current approaches have an important shortcoming: they only provide an approximate solution with no systematic ways to improve it or to prove optimality. In another context, constraint programming (CP) is a generic tool to solve combinatorial optimization problems. Based on a complete search procedure, it will always find the optimal solution if we allow an execution time large enough. A critical design choice, that makes CP non-trivial to use in practice, is the branching decision, directing how the search space is explored. In this work, we propose a general and hybrid approach, based on DRL and CP, for solving combinatorial optimization problems. The core of our approach is based on a dynamic programming formulation, that acts as a bridge between both techniques. We experimentally show that our solver is efficient to solve three challenging problems: the traveling salesman problem with time windows, the 4-moments portfolio optimization problem, and the 0-1 knapsack problem. Results obtained show that the framework introduced outperforms the stand-alone RL and CP solutions, while being competitive with industrial solvers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".