Efficient Decoder Scaling Strategy for Neural Routing Solvers
Authors: Qing Luo, Fu Luo, Ke Li, Zhenkun Wang
Organizations: Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Fully Actuated System Control Theory and Technology, School of Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China. · Department of Computer Science, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Construction-based neural routing solvers, typically composed of an encoder and a decoder, have emerged as a promising approach for solving vehicle routing problems. While recent studies suggest that shifting parameters from the encoder to the decoder enhances performance, most works restrict the decoder size to 1-3M parameters, leaving the effects of scaling largely unexplored. To address this gap, we conduct a systematic study comparing two distinct strategies: scaling depth versus scaling width. We synthesize these strategies to construct a suite of 12 model configurations, spanning a parameter range from 1M to ~150M, and extensively evaluate their scaling behaviors across three critical dimensions: parameter efficiency, data efficiency, and compute efficiency. Our empirical results reveal that parameter count is insufficient to accurately predict the model performance, highlighting the critical and distinct roles of model depth (layer count) and width (embedding dimension). Crucially, we demonstrate that scaling depth yields superior performance gains to scaling width. Based on these findings, we provide and experimentally validate a set of design principles for the efficient allocation of parameters and compute resources to enhance the model performance.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Decoder Parameters Count vs. Optimality Gap. The results demonstrate that simply increasing model size does not guarantee performance gains. The green circles highlight depth-prioritized models (constructed by prioritizing depth scaling over width), which dominate at least one larger model.
Depth
Width
Head Num
QKV Dim
FFN Dim
Parameters
128
8
16
512
1.32M
6
256
16
16
1024
5.26M
512
16
32
2048
21.00M
128
8
16
512
2.60M
12
256
16
16
1024
10.38M
512
16
32
2048
41.46M
Table 1: Configuration of neural models with different depths and widths. “Depth” represents the number of layers in the decoder, and “Width” represents the dimension of the node embeddings.
Figure 2: Scaling Law Analysis for Decoder-only Models. (a) Global Fit: Fitting a single power law (blue dashed line) to all models results in a poor fit ( R2=0.794 ) with a high average prediction error of 34.39% , indicating that parameter count alone is insufficient to predict performance. (b) Scaling Width vs. (c) Scaling Depth: We decouple the scaling behaviors by fixing one dimension. Comparing the scaling exponents ( αn ), we observe that scaling depth (c) yields significantly steeper slopes ( αn≈0.98–1.05 ) compared to scaling width (b) ( αn≈0.24–0.40 ). This quantitatively demonstrates that Depth-Prioritized Models exhibit a much faster rate of performance improvement than width-prioritized ones as parameters increase.
Figure 3: Data Efficiency Analysis. The log-log plot compares the optimality gap against training data size across different architectures. Prioritizing depth yields superior data efficiency: deeper models (e.g., D=42 ) exhibit steeper scaling exponents (up to 0.71 ) compared to wider models (e.g., W=512 , exponent 0.55 ).
Figure 4: Compute Efficiency Analysis. Comparison of optimality gap vs. inference compute budget per instance (GFLOPs) for (a) width scaling and (b) depth scaling. Depth scaling demonstrates superior efficiency, achieving a significantly higher scaling exponent ( α=1.71 for D=42 ) compared to width scaling ( α=1.34 for W=512 ).
Figure 5: Visualization of the performance gap against model parameters ( N ) in log scale for varying depth-to-width ratios ( A ). The consistent drop in the gap as lines shift from cyan (low A ) to pink (high A ) illustrates that prioritizing deeper, narrower architectures effectively reduces the optimality gap under constrained parameter budgets.
Model
Parameters
TSP100
TSP200
TSP500
TSP1000
D=6,W=128
1.32M
0.464%
0.669%
1.559%
2.172%
D=24,W=64
1.29M
0.297%
0.449%
0.857%
1.259%
D=96,W=32
1.30M
0.184%
0.307%
0.678%
0.991%
Table 2: Validation of Design Principle: Performance comparison of model variants with varying depth-to-width ratios under a fixed parameter budget ( ≈1.3 M)
Model (Parameters)
Training Data Size
TSP100
TSP1000
D=6,W=128 (1.32M)
0.1M
1.715%
5.678%
D=6,W=512 (21.0M)
0.1M
0.949%
3.871%
D=42,W=128 (9.02M)
0.1M
0.547%
2.572%
Table 3: Validation of Data Efficiency Policy: Performance comparison of depth versus width scaling under a limited training budget ( 105 samples).
Figure 6: Scaling laws of inference performance across different model configurations. The plot depicts the relationship between optimality gap and inference time (minutes) on a log-log scale. Dashed lines indicate best-fit curves using a shifted power-law model ( y=αtt−βt+γ ), where t denotes inference time. Here, αt serves as the scaling coefficient, and γ represents the asymptotic lower bound of the gap as t→∞ . The parameter βt denotes the decay exponent, indicating the magnitude of performance gain for every doubling of the inference budget.
(Depth,Width,Params)
Limited Budget
Sufficient Budget ( > 1h)
bs
Gap (%)
Time
bs
Gap (%)
Time
(6, 128, 1.3M)
32
0.0127
12m
512
0.0059
2.75h
(6, 512, 21.0M)
8
0.0138
12m
128
0.0007
3.24h
(24, 128, 5.2M)
10
0.0044
12m
128
0.0002
2.60h
(42, 128, 9.0M)
6
0.0056
12m
64
0.0001
2.29h
Table 4: Performance comparison under different inference budgets. We report the Optimality Gap (%) and total inference time. ‘bs’ denotes Beam Search.
TSP 100
TSP 1000
Gap
Time
Gap
Time
LEHD greedy
0.577%
0.29m
3.168%
1.17m
LEHD bs16
0.038%
4.4m
1.874%
22m
BQ greedy
0.348%
1.18m
2.274%
1.18m
BQ bs16
0.015%
17.6m
1.35%
18m
SIGD greedy
0.851%
2.4m
2.791%
2.71m
Table 5: Performance of recent advanced NCO constructive methods on TSP instances with different problem sizes and data distribution. Ground truth solutions are obtained via LKH3 ( Helsgaun, 2017 ) for uniform datasets. ‘bs’ denotes Beam Search.
TSPLib
Baselines
Ours (Depth,Width)
BQ
SIGD
LEHD
(6,128)
(6,512)
(42,128)
(42,512)
<500
2.828%
2.176%
2.287%
2.582%
1.553%
1.364%
0.811%
>500
10.288%
10.812%
9.720%
7.249%
4.127%
3.631%
1.942%
All
5.812%
5.631%
5.260%
5.235%
3.108%
2.346%
1.288%
Table 6: Performance comparison (Gap %) between baselines and our models in TSPLib. Ground truth solutions are obtained from TSPLib ( Reinelt, 1991 ) .
Figure 8: Convergence: w/ vs. w/o Rezero Normalization.
Setting
Model
TSP100
TSP200
TSP500
TSP1000
w/o log(n)
Ours ( D=6,W=128 )
0.464%
0.644%
1.645%
4.050%
Ours ( D=6,W=256 )
0.190%
0.341%
0.880%
2.239%
Ours ( D=42,W=128 )
0.070%
0.184%
0.532%
1.594%
w/ log(n)
Ours ( D=6,W=128 )
0.464%
0.669%
1.559%
2.172%
Ours ( D=6,W=256 )
0.264%
0.498%
0.969%
1.504%
Ours ( D=42,W=128 )
0.070%
0.178%
0.477%
0.869%
Appendix
Table 8: Performance Comparison: w/ and w/o log(n) .
parameters
values
Batch size
1024
Total training steps
60,000
optimizer
AdamW
Weight decay
0.01
Learning rate
1.25×10−4
Scheduler
Exponential
Appendix
Table 9: Training hyperparameters.
Configuration
Device
Configuration
Device
D=6,W=128
4090 ×2
D=24,W=128
4090 ×2
D=6,W=256
4090 ×2
D=24,W=256
4090 ×8
D=6,W=512
4090 ×8
D=24,W=512
4090 ×8
D=12,W=128
4090 ×2
D=42,W=128
4090 ×4
D=12,W=256
4090 ×2
D=42,W=256
4090 ×8
D=12,W=512
4090 ×4
D=42,W=512
4090 ×8
Appendix
Table 10: Hardware Specifications.
Figure 9: Convergence comparison of the model ( Depth=12,Width=128 ) trained on datasets of varying sizes (1M vs. 10M). The model trained on 10 million training samples (orange curve) demonstrates faster convergence and achieves a lower optimality gap compared to the 1 million sample baseline.
Training Dataset Size
TSP100
TSP200
TSP500
TSP1000
Ours greedy (Depth=12,Width=128)
1M
0.337%
0.615%
1.062%
1.606%
Ours greedy (Depth=12,Width=128)
10M
0.302%
0.461%
0.972%
1.357%
Appendix
Table 11: Performance comparison on TSP instances of varying sizes (TSP100 to TSP1000) using models trained on datasets with sizes of 1M and 10M.
TSP 100
Gap
Time
Uniform
LKH3
0.000%
56m
Ours greedy (Depth=6,Width=128)
0.464%
0.34m
Ours greedy (Depth=6,Width=256)
0.264%
0.75m
Ours greedy (Depth=6,Width=512)
0.190%
1.7m
Ours greedy (Depth=12,Width=128)
0.225%
0.62m
Appendix
Table 12: Performance of different configurations on TSP 100 instances.
TSP 200
TSP 500
TSP 1000
Gap
Time
Gap
Time
Gap
Time
Uniform
LKH3
0.000%
17m
0.000%
50m
0.000%
10h
Ours greedy (Depth=6,Width=128)
0.669%
0.035m
1.559%
0.23m
2.172%
1.6m
Ours greedy (Depth=6,Width=256)
0.498%
0.059m
0.969%
0.48m
1.504%
3.2m
Ours greedy (Depth=6,Width=512)
0.375%
0.1m
0.856%
0.75m
1.291%
4.2m
Ours greedy (Depth=12,Width=128)
0.550%
0.054m
0.803%
0.44m
1.357%
3.1m
Appendix
Table 13: Performance of different configurations on TSP 200, 500, and 1000 instances.
TSP 100
TSP 200
TSP 500
TSP 1000
Gap
Time
Gap
Time
Gap
Time
Gap
Time
Explosion
LKH3
0.000%
56m
0.000%
17m
0.000%
50m
0.000%
10h
Ours greedy (Depth=6,Width=128)
0.496%
0.35m
0.767%
0.037m
1.905%
0.23m
3.819%
1.6m
Ours greedy (Depth=6,Width=256)
0.301%
0.75m
0.506%
0.059m
1.143%
0.48m
2.430%
3.2m
Ours greedy (Depth=6,Width=512)
0.222%
1.7m
0.403%
0.1m
0.974%
0.75m
2.029%
4.2m
Ours greedy (Depth=12,Width=128)
0.245%
0.64m
0.420%
0.055m
1.044%
0.44m
1.987%
3.1m
Appendix
Table 14: Performance of different configurations on TSP instances with different problem sizes and the distribution of explosion. Ground truth solutions are obtained via LKH3 for the test dataset.
TSP 100
TSP 200
TSP 500
TSP 1000
Gap
Time
Gap
Time
Gap
Time
Gap
Time
Implosion
LKH3
0.000%
56m
0.000%
17m
0.000%
50m
0.000%
10h
Ours greedy (Depth=6,Width=128)
0.895%
0.35m
1.424%
0.035m
2.909%
0.23m
3.507%
1.7m
Ours greedy (Depth=6,Width=256)
0.529%
0.74m
0.646%
0.06m
1.660%
0.48m
2.580%
3.2m
Ours greedy (Depth=6,Width=512)
0.436%
1.7m
0.634%
0.1m
1.494%
0.75m
2.164%
4.2m
Ours greedy (Depth=12,Width=128)
0.491%
0.63m
0.824%
0.055m
1.725%
0.44m
2.246%
3.1m
Appendix
Table 15: Performance of different configurations on TSP instances with different problem sizes and the distribution of implosion. Ground truth solutions are obtained via LKH3 for the test dataset.
TSP 100
TSP 200
TSP 500
TSP 1000
Gap
Time
Gap
Time
Gap
Time
Gap
Time
Cluster
LKH3
0.000%
56m
0.000%
17m
0.000%
50m
0.000%
10h
Ours greedy (Depth=6,Width=128)
2.742%
0.34m
2.440%
0.035m
4.018%
0.23m
6.639%
1.6m
Ours greedy (Depth=6,Width=256)
1.253%
0.74m
1.240%
0.063m
2.345%
0.48m
4.276%
3.2m
Ours greedy (Depth=6,Width=512)
1.377%
1.7m
1.164%
0.1m
2.002%
0.75m
3.542%
4.2m
Ours greedy (Depth=12,Width=128)
1.134%
0.63m
1.178%
0.055m
1.943%
0.44m
3.539%
3.1m
Appendix
Table 16: Performance of different configurations on TSP instances with different problem sizes and the distribution of clusters. Ground truth solutions are obtained via LKH3 for the test dataset.
Compute per solution
Batch size =50
Batch size =100
Batch size =1000
Ours greedy (Depth=12,Width=512)
843.2 GFLOPs
4.0m
3.4m
3.3m
Ours greedy (Depth=24,Width=256)
434.4 GFLOPs
4.4m
3.2m
2.8m
Appendix
Table 17: Inference time with different batch sizes.
greedy
beam=2
beam=4
beam=8
beam=16
beam=32
beam=64
Ours ( D=6,W=128 )
0.4640%
0.2456%
0.1155%
0.0571%
0.0269%
0.0127%
0.0059%
Ours ( D=6,W=256 )
0.2635%
0.1397%
0.0647%
0.0289%
0.0125%
0.0008%
0.0017%
Ours ( D=6,W=512 )
0.1895%
0.0904%
0.0359%
0.0138%
0.0050%
0.0019%
0.0007%
Ours ( D=12,W=128 )
0.2253%
0.1122%
0.0512%
0.0223%
0.0088%
0.0032%
0.0010%
Ours ( D=12,W=256 )
0.1149%
0.0523%
0.0200%
0.0069%
0.0024%
0.0008%
0.0002%
Ours ( D=12,W=512 )
0.0827%
0.0354%
0.0133%
0.0044%
0.0016%
0.0005%
0.0002%
Appendix
Table 18: The inference performance of different model configurations with different beam sizes on the TSP100 (10,000 instances). When Beam = 1, beam search degenerates into greedy search.
TSP100 (1,000 instances)
Greedy
RRC 100
RRC 200
RRC 500
RRC 800
RRC 1000
Ours ( D=6,W=128 )
0.4228%
0.0103%
0.0068%
0.0040%
0.0030%
0.0024%
Ours ( D=6,W=512 )
0.1824%
0.0033%
0.0018%
0.0007%
0.0006%
0.0005%
Ours ( D=42,W=128 )
0.0656%
0.0015%
0.0012%
0.0004%
0.0004%
0.0004%
Ours ( D=42,W=512 )
0.0332%
0.0008%
0.0006%
0.0003%
0.0002%
0.0002%
Appendix
Table 19: Results on TSP100 and TSP1000 with different budgets.
Figure 10: 2D-PCA visualization for features of available nodes (a): Background nodes exhibit a dispersed distribution with multiple isolated outliers. (b): The background distribution remains scattered. (c): Background nodes form a compact cluster, with the optimal node clearly separated from the background.
Figure 11: Cosine similarity for all available node feature pairs. Node indices are sorted according to the optimal solution. (a) : has distinct green blocks, indicating the presence of multiple clusters. (b) : The green area has noticeably become lighter, but has several distinct green lines, indicating the presence of a few outliers. (c) : The single dark line is clearly distinguishable from the yellow block.
Figure 12: The success rate when the optimal next node is located at different ranks of nearest neighbors.
Model (Parameters)
TSP100
TSP200
TSP500
TSP1000
LEHD (D=6,W=128) (1.43M)
0.577%
0.859%
1.560%
3.168%
LEHD (D=24,W=64) (1.25M)
0.419%
0.597%
1.025%
1.844%
Appendix
Table 20: Performance comparison of LEHD before and after modification on TSP100, TSP200, TSP500, and TSP1000.
Neural combinatorial optimization uses neural networks to find high-quality solutions to discrete problems such as routing, scheduling, and graph partitioning.
Neural routing solvers (NRSs) that leverage deep learning to tackle vehicle routing problems have demonstrated notable potential for practical applications. By learning implicit heuristic rules from data, NRSs replace the handcrafted counterparts in classic heuristic frameworks, thereby reducing reliance on costly manual design and trial-and-error adjustments. This survey makes two main contributions: (1) The heuristic nature of NRSs is highlighted, and existing NRSs are reviewed from the perspective of heuristics. A hierarchical taxonomy based on heuristic principles is further introduced. (2) A generalization-focused evaluation pipeline is proposed to address limitations of the conventional pipeline. Comparative benchmarking of representative NRSs across both pipelines uncovers a series of previously unreported gaps in current research.
Yunpeng Ba, Xi Lin, Changliang Zhou +7
Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Fully Actuated System Control Theory and Technology, School of Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China. · the School of Mathematics and Statistics, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China. · the Institute of Big Data Science and Industry, Shanxi University, Taiyuan, China. +1
Heavy-Encoder-Light-Decoder (HELD) neural routing solvers have emerged as a promising paradigm due to their broad applicability across multiple vehicle routing problems (VRPs). However, they typically struggle with VRP variants with complex constraints. To address this limitation, this paper systematically revisits existing neural solvers from the perspective of the generation mechanism for state embeddings (i.e., query vector prior to compatibility calculation) during decoding. We identify that current mechanisms restrict the observation space during attention computation, introducing a key bottleneck to achieving high-quality solutions. Through detailed empirical analysis, we demonstrate the necessity of preserving a global observation space. To overcome the constraint-agnostic drawback inherent to global observation spaces, we propose a simple yet powerful Constraint-Aware Residual Modulation (CARM) module. By adaptively modulating the context embedding with constraint-relevant variables, CARM effectively enhances constraint awareness, enabling the neural solver to fully leverage the global observation space and generate an efficient state embedding. Extensive experimental results across two single-task and five multi-task neural routing solvers confirm that the CARM module consistently boosts baseline performance. Notably, solvers equipped with our CARM achieve substantial improvements in scaling to large-scale instances and in generalizing to unseen VRP variants. These findings provide valuable insights for the architectural design of neural routing solvers.
Canhong Yu, Changliang Zhou, Rongsheng Chen +2
College of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China · School of Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China · Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Fully Actuated System Control Theory and Technology, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China +1
Neural Combinatorial Optimization (NCO) has achieved strong empirical success, yet the internal mechanisms driving model decisions remain largely unexplored. In this paper, we investigate three representative autoregressive NCO models spanning two encoder-decoder configurations: AM and POMO (heavy-encoder, light-decoder), and LEHD (light-encoder, heavy-decoder). Through behavioral analyses, representation probing, and causal interventions, we examine how these models construct solutions and use internal representations during decoding. Our results suggest that AM and POMO predominantly follow a persistent geometric pattern throughout solution construction, whereas LEHD contains linearly accessible information about multiple future actions. Causal experiments further provide evidence for the role of future-node representations in LEHD's decision-making. We also observe that LEHD relies strongly on the current-node representation for immediate local decisions, while the start-node representation plays a broader navigational role over the subsequent route. Cross-instance alignment analyses additionally indicate that LEHD maps current-node representations into a relatively shared latent region, which may provide a stable reference for evaluating subsequent decisions. Across the Traveling Salesman Problem and the Capacitated Vehicle Routing Problem, these results reveal distinct decision-making patterns across these architecturally distinct solvers and provide a foundation for more interpretable analyses of NCO solvers. Code and additional visualizations are provided in the https://github.com/NCO-Interpretability/NCO-Interpretability.
Fatemeh Askari, Mazdak Teymourian, Mohammad Izadi +1
Department of Computer EngineeringSharif University of Technology