MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A novel framework for a stand-alone Orienteering Problem reinforcement learning-driven beam search

2025· article· en· W4413096405 on OpenAlexaff
S Selvakumaran, K Saravanan, S Sivankalai, Subodh Kumar Suman, G. S. Annie Grace Vimala, P Vithiya

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlind Source Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrienteeringReinforcement learningComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceReinforcementMachine learningHuman–computer interactionMathematical optimizationEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study improves the orienteering algorithm since neural network-based routing strategies have crucial issues. Most conventional approaches use node coordinates, but they use encoder-decoder patterns that don't understand the self-referential nature of routing tasks, resulting in low accuracy during the first steps of node selection and making them impractical. A hybrid technique using a variant beam search algorithm and a learnt heuristic function with higher quality and shorter computation time is offered to overcome these difficulties. Our solution uses an attention-based functional neural network to learn structural dependence between nodes via distance matrices. The reinforcement learning infrastructure trains the heuristic function to enhance node choices and sequences. Experiments show that the single- and multi-label temporal correlation models surpass existing benchmarks on numerous benchmark datasets. In particular, the suggested model generates near optimum solutions with 98.7% accuracy and beats the state-of-the-art technique by 4.3%. Using the suggested framework, convergence is 30% quicker and computing efficiency increases. These findings show that the strategy is beneficial and more efficient, accurate, and practical than current approaches for handling routing difficulties.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBlind Source Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207