Organizations: School of Artificial Intelligence, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing 210044, China. · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen 518055, China. · School of Computer Science and Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen), Shenzhen 518055, Guangdong, China. · Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Novel Security Intelligence Technologies, Shenzhen 518000, Guangdong, China.
Large-scale itinerary planning is a variant of the traveling salesman problem, aiming to determine an optimal path that maximizes the collected point-of-interest (POI) scores while minimizing travel time and cost, subject to travel duration constraints. This paper analyzes inter-component dependence in large-scale itinerary planning and establishes sufficient conditions for weak decomposability, under which an optimal path can visit each cluster as a contiguous subpath. Guided by this weak decomposability, we propose a novel multi-objective cooperative coevolutionary algorithm for large-scale itinerary planning, addressing the challenges of component imbalance and interactions. Specifically, we design a dynamic decomposition strategy based on the normalized fitness within each component, define optimization potential considering component scale and contribution, and develop a computational resource allocation strategy. Finally, we evaluate the proposed algorithm on 18 real-world test cases, eight large-scale semi-synthetic test cases, and eight adapted public clustered orienteering problem benchmark cases. Comparative results show that the proposed algorithm achieves the highest mean hypervolume across all 34 test cases and significantly outperforms the compared algorithms. Ablation and optimizer-decoupling analyses further validate the effectiveness of its core mechanisms and the general applicability of the proposed framework, with particularly pronounced performance gains on large-scale benchmark instances.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. The comparative schematic of the generalized TSP, clustered TSP, and large-scale itinerary planning. Orange backgrounds indicate different clusters, solid circles represent visited vertices, and hollow circles denote unvisited vertices. Three schematic routes contrast large-scale itinerary planning, the generalized traveling salesman problem, and the clustered traveling salesman problem. Orange regions mark clusters; filled and hollow circles distinguish visited and unvisited vertices.
Figure 2. A visual illustration of a graph structure satisfying the weak decomposability conditions. (a) A conceptual multi-cluster graph highlighting intra-cluster costs and representative inter-cluster connections for visual clarity. (b) The corresponding complete cost matrix heatmap, displaying the characteristic block-diagonal structure. Three clusters with low internal edge costs and higher inter-cluster costs, alongside their symmetric complete cost matrix satisfying the sufficient conditions in Theorem 1.
Figure 3. The schematic diagram of problem decomposition and computational resource allocation. Cities are highlighted with an orange background, while green dots within each city represent POIs, with their size indicating the quality of the corresponding POI. The upper diagram shows city components and point-of-interest scores. The middle diagram shows encoding units retained, randomized, or removed during component adjustment. The lower diagram shows the initial and subsequent allocation of computational resources, including a stagnant component.
Cases
Country
City Index
Travel Duration
1
China
5,7
4
2
China
5,7
6
3
France
9,13
4
4
France
9,13
6
5
Germany
16,18
4
6
Germany
16,18
6
Table 1. The description of the test cases
Cases
DGCC
CCIP
LSNSGA-II
MOPSO
AONSGA-II
1
6.632e+07 ± 1.231e+06
6.251e+07 ± 1.276e+06 (++)
5.793e+07 ±3.090e+06 (++)
5.151e+07 ± 3.316e+06 (++)
4.180e+07 ± 1.645e+06 (++)
2
1.266e+08 ± 2.896e+06
1.143e+08 ± 1.997e+06 (++)
8.989e+07 ± 6.553e+06 (++)
8.295e+07 ± 9.231e+06 (++)
6.925e+07 ± 2.831e+06 (++)
3
2.500e+10 ± 7.272e+08
1.920e+10 ± 3.089e+08 (++)
1.906e+10 ± 1.599e+08 (++)
1.857e+10 ± 1.044e+09 (++)
9.125e+09 ± 8.209e+08 (++)
4
6.279e+10 ± 8.828e+08
4.327e+10 ± 5.463e+08 (++)
4.304e+10 ± 1.127e+09 (++)
4.117e+10 ± 1.673e+09 (++)
1.221e+10 ± 1.605e+09 (++)
5
2.694e+10 ± 1.726e+08
2.398e+10 ± 1.385e+09 (++)
2.220e+10 ± 2.172e+09 (++)
1.908e+10 ± 2.153e+09 (++)
1.319e+10 ± 1.567e+09 (++)
6
1.030e+11 ± 2.161e+09
8.990e+10 ± 3.444e+09 (++)
7.191e+10 ± 6.747e+09 (++)
6.269e+10 ± 6.375e+09 (++)
3.848e+10 ± 3.682e+09 (++)
Table 2. The mean and standard deviation of HV obtained by DGCC and four compared algorithms on 18 test cases.
Figure 4. Four test set instance parameters Four panels show the geographical cluster configurations for the China, Japan, USA, and UK semi-synthetic test sets. Annotations report cluster attributes and the total numbers of cities and points of interest.
Cases
Country
No. of Cities
Solution Dimension
Max FEs
1
China
10
500
300000
2
China
10
1000
500000
3
Japan
6
300
180000
4
Japan
6
600
300000
5
USA
12
600
360000
6
USA
12
1200
600000
Table 3. Parameter settings for the semi-synthetic dataset.
Cases
DGCC
CCIP
LSNSGA-II
MOPSO
AONSGA-II
1
1.620e+12 ± 3.973e+10
1.536e+12 ± 1.173e+10 (++)
4.556e+11 ± 2.433e+10 (++)
8.136e+11 ± 2.199e+10 (++)
5.199e+10 ± 2.963e+09 (++)
2
5.965e+11 ± 1.657e+10
5.625e+11 ± 4.491e+09 (++)
1.204e+11 ± 1.122e+10 (++)
1.640e+11 ± 1.417e+10 (++)
2.294e+10 ± 1.632e+09 (++)
3
3.928e+12 ± 1.247e+11
3.722e+12 ± 3.648e+10 (++)
5.161e+11 ± 3.689e+10 (++)
6.399e+11 ± 4.917e+10 (++)
7.653e+10 ± 4.253e+09 (++)
4
1.543e+12 ± 4.202e+10
1.459e+12 ± 1.623e+10 (++)
2.585e+11 ± 1.807e+10 (++)
3.268e+11 ± 2.367e+10 (++)
4.563e+10 ± 3.695e+09 (++)
5
6.179e+12 ± 1.024e+11
5.793e+12 ± 3.260e+10 (++)
6.008e+11 ± 4.019e+10 (++)
8.017e+11 ± 7.077e+10 (++)
8.588e+10 ± 5.160e+09 (++)
6
2.279e+12 ± 3.002e+10
2.142e+12 ± 1.884e+10 (++)
3.403e+11 ± 1.897e+10 (++)
4.427e+11 ± 3.533e+10 (++)
6.639e+10 ± 7.583e+09 (++)
Table 4. The mean and standard deviation of HV obtained by DGCC and four compared algorithms on 8 test cases.
Cases
Instance
No. of Clusters
Solution Dimension k
Max FEs
1
att532s10g1q2.cop
10
250
200000
2
att532s10g1q3.cop
10
250
200000
3
att532s10g2q2.cop
10
250
200000
4
att532s10g2q3.cop
10
250
200000
5
att532s15g1q2.cop
15
300
270000
6
att532s15g1q3.cop
15
300
270000
Table 5. Parameter settings for the COP test set.
Cases
DGCC
CCIP
LSNSGA-II
MOPSO
AONSGA-II
1
1.063e+14 ± 1.383e+11
1.058e+14 ± 1.568e+11 (++)
2.793e+10 ± 9.778e+08 (++)
3.264e+10 ± 9.388e+08 (++)
2.149e+09 ± 2.479e+08 (++)
2
1.065e+14 ± 1.482e+11
1.060e+14 ± 9.621e+10 (++)
3.185e+10 ± 1.145e+09 (++)
3.698e+10 ± 8.812e+08 (++)
3.726e+09 ± 3.931e+08 (++)
3
1.062e+14 ± 1.104e+11
1.057e+14 ± 1.448e+11 (++)
2.718e+10 ± 8.937e+08 (++)
3.166e+10 ± 9.840e+08 (++)
1.786e+09 ± 2.405e+08 (++)
4
1.064e+14 ± 1.325e+11
1.058e+14 ± 1.362e+11 (++)
2.799e+10 ± 1.257e+09 (++)
3.297e+10 ± 7.951e+08 (++)
2.016e+09 ± 2.339e+08 (++)
5
1.079e+14 ± 2.967e+11
1.069e+14 ± 1.947e+11 (++)
5.763e+10 ± 1.477e+09 (++)
6.214e+10 ± 1.472e+09 (++)
4.453e+09 ± 5.725e+08 (++)
6
1.080e+14 ± 2.303e+11
1.069e+14 ± 1.605e+11 (++)
5.516e+10 ± 2.015e+09 (++)
6.008e+10 ± 1.360e+09 (++)
3.935e+09 ± 4.618e+08 (++)
Table 6. The mean and standard deviation of HV obtained by DGCC and four compared algorithms on 8 test cases.
Case
DGCC
w/o structure adjustment
w/o resource allocation
w/o population inheritance
1
1.812e+06 ± 4.904e+04
1.761e+06 ± 4.137e+04
1.809e+06 ± 6.137e+04
1.396e+06 ± 5.886e+04
2
4.736e+06 ± 2.151e+05
4.525e+06 ± 1.824e+05
4.705e+06 ± 1.995e+05
3.040e+06 ± 2.209e+05
3
5.963e+09 ± 2.292e+08
4.537e+09 ± 3.976e+08
5.840e+09 ± 2.825e+08
4.148e+09 ± 2.450e+08
4
2.150e+10 ± 4.201e+08
1.647e+10 ± 7.287e+08
2.111e+10 ± 4.707e+08
1.420e+10 ± 4.289e+08
5
1.421e+09 ± 5.328e+07
1.411e+09 ± 7.589e+07
1.409e+09 ± 5.872e+07
1.221e+09 ± 1.083e+08
6
7.829e+09 ± 3.546e+08
7.451e+09 ± 6.230e+08
7.809e+09 ± 3.583e+08
5.612e+09 ± 7.196e+08
Table 7. The mean and standard deviation of HV about the ablation study of DGCC on 18 test cases.
Test Sets
Dataset 1 (Itinerary Planning)
Dataset 2 (COP Instances)
Original Index
7
8
13
14
1
2
5
6
New Cases
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Table 8. Mapping relationship between the evaluated test cases and the original datasets.
Cases
NSGA-II Operators
HI_MOEA Operators
MMTSP_DS Operators
with DGCC
without DGCC
with DGCC
without DGCC
with DGCC
without DGCC
1
3.740e+08 ± 7.410e+06
1.548e+08 ± 1.430e+07 (++)
3.733e+08 ± 4.586e+06
1.608e+08 ± 1.864e+07 (++)
3.656e+08 ± 3.770e+06
1.224e+08 ± 1.668e+07 (++)
2
9.781e+08 ± 1.955e+07
2.114e+08 ± 2.273e+07 (++)
9.664e+08 ± 1.584e+07
2.185e+08 ± 2.681e+07 (++)
9.584e+08 ± 1.188e+07
1.538e+08 ± 2.838e+07 (++)
3
4.163e+09 ± 4.633e+07
1.688e+09 ± 2.384e+08 (++)
4.146e+09 ± 5.775e+07
1.689e+09 ± 2.323e+08 (++)
4.173e+09 ± 6.463e+07
1.408e+09 ± 3.046e+08 (++)
4
1.338e+10 ± 1.761e+08
2.920e+09 ± 3.062e+08 (++)
1.341e+10 ± 1.496e+08
3.117e+09 ± 5.452e+08 (++)
1.336e+10 ± 1.619e+08
2.180e+09 ± 7.039e+08 (++)
5
1.059e+14 ± 1.514e+11
1.674e+09 ± 2.631e+08 (++)
1.058e+14 ± 1.166e+11
1.577e+09 ± 2.960e+08 (++)
1.058e+14 ± 1.501e+11
1.587e+09 ± 2.776e+08 (++)
Table 9. The mean and standard deviation of HV obtained by different base operators with and without the proposed DGCC framework.
Figure 5. The variation curve of normalized HV with respect to the structure adjustment period L in three test cases from China, France, and Germany. Normalized hypervolume versus structure adjustment period L for test cases from China, France, and Germany. The curves generally rise at smaller periods and decline at larger periods, with fluctuations.
Figure 6. The variation curve of normalized HV with respect to the available computational resource Q in three test cases from China, France, and Germany. Normalized hypervolume versus computational resources per round Q for test cases from China, France, and Germany. All three curves show an overall decrease as Q increases, with local fluctuations.
Algorithms
Day
City
Points of Interest
DGCC
1
Nanjing
Laomen East Historical District → Confucius Temple–Qinhuai Scenic Area → Confucius Temple → Zhan Garden → Mochou Lake Scenic Area
2
Nanjing
Shiziqiao Food Street → Jiming Temple → Jiangning Imperial Silk Manufacturing Museum → Xinjiekou
3
Nanjing
Presidential Palace of Nanjing → Nanjing Ming Palace Ruins Park
4
Suzhou
Fengqiao Scenic Area → Hanshan Temple → Suzhou Museum → Lion Grove Garden
CCIP
1
Nanjing
Drum Tower → Jiming Temple → Xinjiekou → Mochou Lake Scenic Area
2
Nanjing
Qinhuai River → Laomen East Historical District → Nanjing Ming Palace Ruins Park → Nanjing Museum
Table 10. Itineraries for DGCC, CCIP, and LSNSGA-II
Large-scale routing often requires visiting clusters of nodes in a prescribed order, giving rise to the Ordered Clustered Traveling Salesman Problem (OCTSP). Optimizing each cluster independently seems natural, but misses non-local dependencies. We introduce the COMPASS algorithm for OCTSP, which combines search with learning-accelerated routing by orchestrating parallel sub-solvers. COMPASS has no quality ceiling and its solutions keep improving with compute. It exploits the clustered structure, and can reach exact solutions in time exponential in cluster size rather than instance size. Empirically, COMPASS consistently outperforms alternative methods. Unlike common large-scale routing solvers, COMPASS consumes general distance matrices and is not limited to coordinate inputs. We demonstrate scaling to 100K synthetic nodes and to 28.5K real e-commerce nodes. To our knowledge, the latter is the largest reported routing solution over asymmetric distances, 9x beyond established ATSP benchmarks.
In large urban areas, planning multi-day travel itineraries is challenging due to the abundance of Points of Interest (POIs), diverse user preferences, and constraints such as opening hours. Effective solutions must dynamically accommodate diverse traveler requirements while optimizing for satisfaction and feasibility within limited computation time. This paper addresses these challenges through introducing an innovative framework that integrates Large Language Models (LLMs) to dynamically capture user requirements with precision and flexibility, and an enhanced Greedy Randomized Adaptive Search Procedure (GRASP) algorithm as a well-suited preference-aware planner to generate feasible multi-day itineraries. The effectiveness of our integrated approach is demonstrated through extensive experiments on two real-world urban datasets from Beijing and Tianjin. Our framework significantly outperforms state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods, improving the average total itinerary score by at least 4.52% and 11.09% across 5,040 user cases with diverse preferences in the two datasets. Furthermore, through end-to-end algorithmic enhancements, it achieves notable average improvements of 17.95% and 26.07% in the computed metrics, while also delivering substantial gains in time efficiency -- realizing average performance increases of 4.64% and 25.55% within shorter computation times compared to suboptimal methods that require multiple iterations. These outcomes underscore our method's superiority in delivering both enhanced itinerary quality and computational efficiency over existing methodologies.
Rongbo Qi, Yaqi Zhang, Shijun Yan +3
College of Computer Science, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300350, Tianjin, China. · Jiangxi Normal University, Nanchang, 330022, Jiangxi, China. · College of Software, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300350, Tianjin, China.
Routing problems, like the Traveling Salesman Problem (TSP) and the Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem (CVRP), are NP-hard and slow to solve for large instances. Diffusion-based solvers can be trained in a supervised way using sets of optimal solutions, and then quickly solve new test instances. However, for large instances, optimal solutions are hard to find, and diffusion models fail to generalize to instance sizes outside their training distribution. Here we describe ResizeCO, a label free size-generalization approach that addresses both the change in statistical properties of larger instances, and the computational challenge of solving them quickly. It uses reinforcement learning on large-scale instances to adapt a diffusion model trained on small instances. Specifically, we adapt GRPO to this problem, using route length as the training signal. ResizeCO also formulates k-opt as a tree search, solved by a beam search on the GPU. In size-generalization experiments on TSP and CVRP instances with up to 10000 nodes, ResizeCO achieves a Pareto front over route quality and time that dominates learned solvers, and also outperforms other solvers at short run times, setting a new state of the art.
Barak Itzchak Davidovitch, Eli Meirom, Ethan Fetaya +1