MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Approximation Schemes for Orienteering and Deadline TSP in Doubling Metrics

2025· article· en· W7110209134 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComplexity and Algorithms in Graphs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOrienteeringBounded functionTravelling salesman problemHamiltonian pathTreewidthDimension (graph theory)Path (computing)Graph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we look at various extensions of the classic Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) on graphs with bounded doubling dimension and bounded treewidth and present approximation schemes for them. Suppose we are given a weighted graph G = (V,E) with a start node s ∈ V, distances on the edges d:E → ℚ^+ and integer k. In k-stroll problem the goal is to find a path from s of minimum length that visits at least k vertices. In k-path we are given an additional end node t ∈ V and the path is supposed to go from s to t. The dual problem to k-stroll is the rooted orienteering in which instead of k we are given a budget B and the goal is to find a walk of length at most B starting at s that visits as many vertices as possible. In the point-to-point orienteering (P2P orienteering) we are given start and end nodes s,t and the walk is supposed to start at s and end at t. In the deadline TSP (which generalizes P2P orienteering) we are given a deadline D(v) for each v ∈ V and the goal is to find a walk starting at s that visits as many vertices as possible before their deadline (where the visit time of a node is the distance travelled from s to that node). The best approximation for rooted orienteering (or P2P orienteering) is (2+ε)-approximation [Chekuri et al., 2012] and O(log n)-approximation for deadline TSP [Nikhil Bansal et al., 2004]. For Euclidean metrics of fixed dimension, Chen and Har-Peled present [Chen and Har-Peled, 2008] a PTAS for rooted orienteering. There is no known approximation scheme for deadline TSP for any metric (not even trees). Our main result is the first approximation scheme for deadline TSP on metrics with bounded doubling dimension (which includes Euclidean metrics). To do so we first we present a quasi-polynomial time approximation scheme for k-path and P2P orienteering on such metrics. More specifically, if G is a metric with doubling dimension κ and aspect ratio Δ, we present a (1+ε)-approximation that runs in time n^{O((logΔ/ε) ^{2κ+1})}. Building upon these, we obtain an approximation scheme for deadline TSP when the distances and deadlines are integer which runs in time n^{O((log Δ/ε) ^{2κ+2})}. The same approach also implies a bicriteria (1+ε,1+ε)-approximation for deadline TSP for when distances and deadlines are in ℚ^+. For graphs with bounded treewidth ω we show how to solve k-path and P2P orienteering exactly in polynomial time and a (1+ε)-approximation for deadline TSP in time n^O((ωlogΔ/ε)²).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.009
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics)Same topicComplexity and Algorithms in GraphsFrench-language works237,207