Adaptive Cluster-First Route-Second Decomposition for Industrial-Scale Vehicle Routing
About
Large-scale capacitated vehicle routing problems (CVRPs) are commonly addressed using cluster-first route-second (CFRS) approaches that split a routing instance into smaller, computationally tractable subproblems. Existing splitting methods typically rely on fixed partitioning rules, predefined optimization objectives, or learned policies, which may perform inconsistently across instances exhibiting different spatial, demand, and operational characteristics. In this work, we propose an adaptive CFRS system that formulates a decomposition procedure as an iterative decision-making process. Motivated by the recent success of large language models (LLMs) in reasoning and tool selection, the system employs an LLM as a high-level decision maker that analyzes the evolving decomposition state and selectively applies further clustering, balancing, and refinement operators. The proposed algorithm jointly partitions customers and vehicles, enabling capacity-aware clustering while adapting partitioning decisions to the characteristics of each problem. We evaluate the approach on synthetic and benchmark-derived CVRP instances containing up to 500,000 customers. Experimental results demonstrate competitive performance on benchmark-scale instances while exhibiting improved scalability and robust routing quality on substantially larger problems. These results highlight the potential of adaptive, LLM-guided decision support as a practical approach for industrial-scale vehicle routing and large-scale logistics planning.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem | AGS benchmark-derived instances Grid + Unified Depot | Missed Deliveries (%)0.00e+0 | 15 | |
| Vehicle Routing Problem | AGS benchmark-derived instances concatenated, Overlapping 2-instance (Flanders1, Flanders2) | Missed Deliveries (%)0.00e+0 | 8 | |
| Vehicle Routing Problem | AGS Flanders1 & Flanders2, Grid + Original 2-instance concatenated | Missed Deliveries (%)0.00e+0 | 8 | |
| Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem | AGS 2-instance concatenated, Grid + Scaled | Missed Deliveries Rate11.19 | 8 | |
| Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem | AGS Grid + Original 6-instance concatenated (Flanders2, Flanders1, Brussels2, Brussels1, Ghent2, Ghent1) | Missed Deliveries (%)0.00e+0 | 7 | |
| Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem | AGS Grid + Scaled 6-instance concatenated (Flanders2, Flanders1, Brussels2, Brussels1, Ghent2, Ghent1) | Missed Deliveries (%)0.04 | 7 | |
| Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem | AGS Overlapping 6-instance concatenated (Flanders2, Flanders1, Brussels2, Brussels1, Ghent2, Ghent1) | Missed Deliveries (%)0.00e+0 | 7 | |
| Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem | AGS benchmark 10-instance concatenated (Grid + Unified Depot) | Missed Deliveries0.00e+0 | 7 | |
| Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem | AGS Grid + Unified Depot 6-instance concatenated (Flanders2, Flanders1, Brussels2, Brussels1, Ghent2, Ghent1) | Missed Deliveries (%)0.48 | 7 | |
| Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem | AGS benchmark-derived instances Grid + Original (10-instance concatenated) | Time (s)154.3 | 7 |