Sym-NCO: Leveraging Symmetricity for Neural Combinatorial Optimization
About
Deep reinforcement learning (DRL)-based combinatorial optimization (CO) methods (i.e., DRL-NCO) have shown significant merit over the conventional CO solvers as DRL-NCO is capable of learning CO solvers less relying on problem-specific expert domain knowledge (heuristic method) and supervised labeled data (supervised learning method). This paper presents a novel training scheme, Sym-NCO, which is a regularizer-based training scheme that leverages universal symmetricities in various CO problems and solutions. Leveraging symmetricities such as rotational and reflectional invariance can greatly improve the generalization capability of DRL-NCO because it allows the learned solver to exploit the commonly shared symmetricities in the same CO problem class. Our experimental results verify that our Sym-NCO greatly improves the performance of DRL-NCO methods in four CO tasks, including the traveling salesman problem (TSP), capacitated vehicle routing problem (CVRP), prize collecting TSP (PCTSP), and orienteering problem (OP), without utilizing problem-specific expert domain knowledge. Remarkably, Sym-NCO outperformed not only the existing DRL-NCO methods but also a competitive conventional solver, the iterative local search (ILS), in PCTSP at 240 faster speed. Our source code is available at https://github.com/alstn12088/Sym-NCO.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Traveling Salesman Problem | TSP-100 | Optimality Drop0.94 | 53 | |
| Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) | TSP n=100 10K instances (test) | Objective Value7.79 | 52 | |
| Traveling Salesperson Problem | TSP-100 | Solution Length7.79 | 42 | |
| Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem | CVRP N=100 10,000 instances (test) | Objective Value15.87 | 28 | |
| Traveling Salesman Problem | TSP N=200 | Cost Gap0.009 | 24 | |
| Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem | CVRP N=100 (test 10k inst.) | Optimality Gap1.46 | 22 | |
| Traveling Salesperson Problem | TSP N=100 (test) | Optimality Gap0.64 | 21 | |
| Traveling Salesman Problem | TSP N=100 | Cost (%)0.14 | 20 | |
| Traveling Salesman Problem | TSP 10,000 randomly generated instances (test) | Cost5.7 | 20 | |
| Traveling Salesperson Problem | TSP N=200 (Generalization (128 instances)) | Optimality Gap2.28 | 19 |