Large Language Models as End-to-end Combinatorial Optimization Solvers
About
Combinatorial optimization (CO) problems, central to decision-making scenarios like logistics and manufacturing, are traditionally solved using problem-specific algorithms requiring significant domain expertise. While large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in automating CO problem solving, existing approaches rely on intermediate steps such as code generation or solver invocation, limiting their generality and accessibility. This paper introduces a novel framework that empowers LLMs to serve as end-to-end CO solvers by directly mapping natural language problem descriptions to solutions. We propose a two-stage training strategy: supervised fine-tuning (SFT) imparts LLMs with solution generation patterns from domain-specific solvers, while a feasibility-and-optimality-aware reinforcement learning (FOARL) process explicitly mitigates constraint violations and refines solution quality. Evaluation across seven NP-hard CO problems shows that our method achieves a high feasibility rate and reduces the average optimality gap to 1.03-8.20% by tuning a 7B-parameter LLM, surpassing both general-purpose LLMs (e.g., GPT-4o), reasoning models (e.g., DeepSeek-R1), and domain-specific heuristics. Our method establishes a unified language-based pipeline for CO without extensive code execution or manual architectural adjustments for different problems, offering a general and language-driven alternative to traditional solver design while maintaining relative feasibility guarantees.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem | CVRP | Feasibility100 | 21 | |
| Minimum Vertex Cover | MVC | Feasibility100 | 21 | |
| Orienteering Problem | OP | Feasibility100 | 21 | |
| Traveling Salesperson Problem | TSP | Feasibility100 | 21 | |
| Job-Shop Scheduling Problem | JSSP | Feasibility100 | 21 | |
| Maximum Independent Set | MIS | Feasibility Rate94 | 21 | |
| Permutation Flow Shop Scheduling Problem | PFSP | Feasibility1 | 21 | |
| Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem | CVRP Small 10–30 nodes | Optimality Gap1.7 | 6 | |
| Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem | CVRP Medium 40–60 nodes | Optimality Gap4.57 | 6 | |
| Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem | CVRP Large 70–100 nodes | Optimality Gap7.24 | 6 |