Learning for routing: A guided review of recent developments and future directions
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
This paper reviews the current progress in applying machine learning (ML) tools to solve NP-hard combinatorial optimization problems, with a focus on routing problems such as the traveling salesman problem (TSP) and the vehicle routing problem (VRP). Due to the inherent complexity of these problems, exact algorithms often require excessive computational time to find optimal solutions, while heuristics can only provide approximate solutions without guaranteeing optimality. With the recent success of machine learning models, there is a growing trend in proposing and implementing diverse ML techniques to enhance the resolution of these challenging routing problems. We propose a taxonomy categorizing ML-based routing methods into construction-based and improvement-based approaches, highlighting their applicability to various problem characteristics. This review aims to integrate traditional OR methods with state-of-the-art ML techniques, providing a structured framework to guide future research and address emerging VRP variants.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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