MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Efficient Traveling Salesman Problem Solvers using the Ising Model with Simulated Bifurcation

2022· article· en· W4280625329 on OpenAlexafffund
Tingting Zhang, Jie Han

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsTravelling salesman problemSolverComputer scienceMathematical optimizationSimulated annealingBenchmark (surveying)Ising modelSpinsApplied mathematicsMathematicsAlgorithmPhysicsStatistical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An Ising model-based solver has shown efficiency in obtaining suboptimal solutions for combinatorial optimization problems. As an NP-hard problem, the traveling salesman problem (TSP) plays an important role in various routing and scheduling applications. However, the execution speed and solution quality significantly deteriorate using a solver with simulated annealing (SA) due to the quadratically increasing number of spins and strong constraints placed on the spins. The ballistic simulated bifurcation (bSB) algorithm utilizes the signs of Kerr-nonlinear parametric oscillators' positions as the spins' states. It can update the states in parallel to alleviate the time explosion problem. In this paper, we propose an efficient method for solving TSPs by using the Ising model with bSB. Firstly, the TSP is mapped to an Ising model without external magnetic fields by introducing a redundant spin. Secondly, various evolution strategies for the introduced position and different dynamic configurations of the time step are considered to improve the efficiency in solving TSPs. The effectiveness is specifically discussed and evaluated by comparing the solution quality to SA. Experiments on benchmark datasets show that the proposed bSB-based TSP solvers offer superior performance in solution quality and achieve a significant speed up in runtime than recent SA-based ones.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
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)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 Design, Automation & Test in Europe Conference & Exhibition (DATE)Same topicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207