RL4CO: An Extensive Reinforcement Learning for Combinatorial Optimization Benchmark
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Combinatorial optimization (CO) is fundamental to several realworld applications, from logistics and scheduling to hardware design and resource allocation.Deep reinforcement learning (RL) has recently shown significant benefits in solving CO problems, reducing reliance on domain expertise and improving computational efficiency.However, the absence of a unified benchmarking framework leads to inconsistent evaluations, limits reproducibility, and increases engineering overhead, raising barriers to adoption for new researchers.To address these challenges, we introduce RL4CO, a unified and extensive benchmark with in-depth library coverage of 27 CO problem environments and 23 state-of-the-art baselines.Built on efficient software libraries and best practices in implementation, RL4CO features modularized implementation and flexible configurations of diverse environments, policy architectures, RL algorithms, and utilities with extensive documentation.RL4CO helps researchers build on existing successes while exploring and developing their own designs, facilitating the entire research process by decoupling science from heavy engineering.We finally provide extensive benchmark studies to inspire new insights and future work.RL4CO has already attracted numerous researchers in the community and is open-sourced at https://github.com/ai4co/rl4co 1 .
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".