Learning implicit multiple time windows in the Traveling Salesman Problem
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
Classically, researchers working in vehicle routing problems (VRPs) assume that the structure of the problem is known (i.e., objective function, constraints, parameters). However, recent studies have highlighted the gap between the routes offered by classical optimization algorithms and the routes followed by experienced drivers. As a result, researchers have turned their attention towards the acquisition and inclusion of drivers’ knowledge to learn the order in which each customer is going to be served by the driver. In this study, we describe and solve a new problem called the multiple time window learning problem. In contrast to other VRP variants, the goal is to learn the time windows associated with each customer. Our approaches are based on the observation and exploitation of historical data with a new algorithm called the recall heuristic, and the exploration of new information based on the multi-armed bandit problem. Computational results based on real data extracted from a traffic sign dataset from the city of Montreal showed that our approaches can learn time windows and, as a result, propose routes similar to those created by experienced drivers, while still minimizing the routing costs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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