Approximating Traveling Salesman Problems Using a Bridge Lemma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We give improved approximations for two metric Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) variants. In Ordered TSP (OTSP) we are given a linear ordering on a subset of nodes $o_1, \ldots, o_k$. The TSP solution must have that $o_{i+1}$ is visited at some point after $o_i$ for each $1 \leq i < k$. This is the special case of Precedence-Constrained TSP ($PTSP$) in which the precedence constraints are given by a single chain on a subset of nodes. In $k$-Person TSP Path (k-TSPP), we are given pairs of nodes $(s_1,t_1), \ldots, (s_k,t_k)$. The goal is to find an $s_i$-$t_i$ path with minimum total cost such that every node is visited by at least one path. We obtain a $3/2 + e^{-1} < 1.878$ approximation for OTSP, the first improvement over a trivial $α+1$ approximation where $α$ is the current best TSP approximation. We also obtain a $1 + 2 \cdot e^{-1/2} < 2.214$ approximation for k-TSPP, the first improvement over a trivial $3$-approximation. These algorithms both use an adaptation of the Bridge Lemma that was initially used to obtain improved Steiner Tree approximations [Byrka et al., 2013]. Roughly speaking, our variant states that the cost of a cheapest forest rooted at a given set of terminal nodes will decrease by a substantial amount if we randomly sample a set of non-terminal nodes to also become terminals such provided each non-terminal has a constant probability of being sampled. We believe this view of the Bridge Lemma will find further use for improved vehicle routing approximations beyond this paper.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".