MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimized Travelling Salesman Problem Solution Using 1-Tree Approach

2025· article· en· W4412742817 on OpenAlexaff
Ishani Das, Tuli Bakshi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms Research
Canadian institutionsFuture Earth
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTravelling salesman problemComputer scienceMathematical optimizationTree (set theory)AlgorithmMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research delves deeply into the realm of optimization techniques as they apply to combinatorial problems, with a specific focus on time-honored challenges such as the Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP), Minimum Spanning Trees (MSTs), 1-tree Graphs, and the use of Lagrange Relaxation. Combinatorial puzzles represent formidable obstacles across a diverse array of domains, including logistics, network architecture, VLSI circuit design, and bio informatics. This investigation aims to elucidate how advanced optimization methodologies can adeptly and efficiently address these intricate problems. By analyzing how these optimization techniques have been applied in real-world scenarios, the research aims to provide a detailed understanding of their effectiveness and potential drawbacks. Furthermore, this study will explore the theoretical underpinnings of these optimization methods, offering insights into the algorithms and heuristics that drive their success. It will also consider the computational complexity associated with these techniques, evaluating their feasibility for large-scale applications. By doing so, the research offers valuable insights into potential directions for future research in this ever-evolving field, aiming to identify gaps in the current knowledge and propose new avenues for exploration that could lead to the development of even more efficient and effective optimization strategies. This investigation not only contributes to the academic understanding of combinatorial optimization but also has practical implications for improving processes and solving complex problems in various industries.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0070.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMetaheuristic Optimization Algorithms ResearchFrench-language works237,207