MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389738699 · doi:10.1002/net.22200

Learning to repeatedly solve routing problems

2023· article· en· W4389738699 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNetworks · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Routing Optimization Methods
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsBenchmark (surveying)Mathematical optimizationComputer scienceVehicle routing problemHeuristicFocus (optics)Routing (electronic design automation)Optimization problemResolution (logic)Combinatorial optimizationAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last years, there has been a great interest in machine‐learning‐based heuristics for solving NP‐hard combinatorial optimization problems. The developed methods have shown potential on many optimization problems. In this paper, we present a learned heuristic for the reoptimization of a problem after a minor change in its data. We focus on the case of the capacited vehicle routing problem with static clients (i.e., same client locations) and changed demands. Given the edges of an original solution, the goal is to predict and fix the ones that have a high chance of remaining in an optimal solution after a change of client demands. This partial prediction of the solution reduces the complexity of the problem and speeds up its resolution, while yielding a good quality solution. The proposed approach resulted in solutions with an optimality gap ranging from 0% to 1.7% on different benchmark instances within a reasonable computing time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.235 · 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