RouteFinder: Towards Foundation Models for Vehicle Routing Problems
Federico Berto, Chuanbo Hua, Nayeli Gast Zepeda, Andr\'e Hottung, Niels Wouda, Leon Lan, Junyoung Park, Kevin Tierney, Jinkyoo Park

TL;DR
RouteFinder is a transformer-based foundation model framework designed to handle various Vehicle Routing Problem variants efficiently, using attribute embeddings, reinforcement learning techniques, and adapter layers for fine-tuning.
Contribution
The paper introduces a unified VRP environment and a transformer-based foundation model that can adapt to multiple VRP variants with unseen attributes.
Findings
Outperforms recent state-of-the-art learning methods on 48 VRP variants.
Uses reinforcement learning techniques like mixed batch training and reward normalization.
Employs adapter layers for efficient fine-tuning on new VRP variants.
Abstract
This paper introduces RouteFinder, a comprehensive foundation model framework to tackle different Vehicle Routing Problem (VRP) variants. Our core idea is that a foundation model for VRPs should be able to represent variants by treating each as a subset of a generalized problem equipped with different attributes. We propose a unified VRP environment capable of efficiently handling any combination of these attributes. The RouteFinder model leverages a modern transformer-based encoder and global attribute embeddings to improve task representation. Additionally, we introduce two reinforcement learning techniques to enhance multi-task performance: mixed batch training, which enables training on different variants at once, and multi-variant reward normalization to balance different reward scales. Finally, we propose efficient adapter layers that enable fine-tuning for new variants with…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2025
1. The introduction of RouteFinder as a foundation model for various VRP variants is a significant step forward, offering flexibility and reducing the need for specialized models for each variant. This can lead to more accessible and scalable VRP solutions across diverse scenarios. 2. The model employs a transformer-based encoder with Global Attribute Embeddings, improving the understanding and differentiation of VRP tasks, which translates to better adaptability and solution quality. 3. Mixe
1. Although RouteFinder demonstrates strong generalization across VRP variants, some performance trade-offs arise when compared to models designed for specific problem variants. Additional analysis could help address these trade-offs, especially in large-scale deployments. 2. While MBT is an efficient training method, the paper could provide a more detailed examination of its limitations, particularly in cases of significantly imbalanced attribute distributions. Including more ablation studies
The foundation model is better than MTPOMO, MVMoE and AL in uniform data. The normalization of rewards and layers makes a lot of sense to standardize the training of different vehicle routing problems that take on different features. Extending zero-shot and few-shot capabilities of a foundation model advances the frontier of large optimization models.
The foundation model is not validated comprehensively. The zero-shot validation for a mere M constraint is not convincing as it is very relevant to constraints in training batch. More constraints in zero-shot validation are supposed to make a more solid work. The zero-shot didn't account for MTPOMO, MVMoE that were only compared in Table 1. Besides uniform data, the foudanation model is validated in CVRPLIB ignoring more practical vehicle routing problems like soloman VRPTW data. The improvement
1. The authors propose a unified VRP environment that can handle multiple VRP variants efficiently, demonstrating a strong attempt at generalization in a complex combinatorial optimization domain. 2. The introduction of Efficient Adapter Layers (EAL) presents a lightweight yet powerful method to fine-tune the model for unseen attributes, which is crucial for practical applications that require adaptability.
1. Figure 4.1 lacks sufficient explanation. There is a need for a more detailed description of Figure 4.1. 2. The proposed unified VRP environment and attribute dynamic composition approach, while having some differences compared to MTPOMO and MVMoE in handling different attributes, does not present substantial changes. In fact, MTPOMO and MVMoE can also achieve similar functionality. 3. The improvements to the Transformer architecture are mainly module-level substitutions, such as the use of R
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsData Management and Algorithms · Advanced Database Systems and Queries · Mobile Agent-Based Network Management
MethodsAdapter
