Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Optimizing Job Allocation using Reinforcement Learning with Graph Neural Networks

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a reinforcement learning agent with a graph attention network learns near-maximal conflict-free job allocations, outperforming greedy and random baselines on hospital and synthetic data and generalizing to…

desk verdict Sensible RL+GNN application undermined by a feasibility bug in the MDP transition and unsupported performance claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.19063 v1 pith:TY4IFCEL submitted 2025-01-31 cs.LG

Lars C.P.M. Quaedvlieg This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords joballocationproblemreinforcementlearninggraphneuralnetworksattentiondeepQ-learningcombinatorialoptimizationschedulingout-of-distributiongeneralization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces the Job Allocation Problem (JAP), in which a set of people must be assigned to as many jobs as possible while respecting per-person conflict constraints between jobs, and proposes to solve it with reinforcement learning instead of labeled data. The agent observes the allocation problem as a graph with selection edges (who can do which job) and conflict edges (which jobs clash for the same person), takes one assignment per step, and receives a reward of 1 for each valid assignment, making the episode return equal to the allocation size. The paper claims the resulting graph-attention Q-network outperforms greedy, random, and untrained baselines on a hospital dataset and two synthetic graph families, and that it generalizes to out-of-distribution instances of different size and density. The payoff, if true, is a scheduling method that needs no manual annotation, avoiding a key bottleneck for supervised learning on NP-hard combinatorial problems.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the MDP transition function together with a Context-Aware Embedding (CAE) module. The CAE module splits a job-allocation graph into a selection subgraph (people–jobs edges) and a conflict subgraph (job–job edges), passes each through its own graph attention layer (a message-passing layer that weights neighbor updates by learned attention), and merges the job representations symmetrically via $f_{\theta_2}(x,y)=1+\lambda\,\mathrm{FC}_{\theta_2}([x\Vert y])$ averaged over both argument orders; the Q-value for assigning person $p$ to job $j$ is the dot product of their final embeddings. The transition function removes the chosen selection edge along with every conflicting edge for that person, so every episode yields a feasible allocation and the undiscounted cumulative reward equals the size of the allocation.

What would settle it

Evaluate the trained GNN on instances in which each job has capacity one (each job executed at most once), computing exact optima by enumeration for small graphs; under the paper's transition rule the same job can be selected by many people, so feasible allocation sizes would diverge from the reported near-optimal ratios. A second, immediate check is the paper's own Table 1: on the Barabási–Albert dataset the GNN's mean approximation ratio is 0.999 ± 0.002 while Greedy attains 1.000, so the assertion of superiority across each dataset is falsified on the reported numbers.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery, stated on its own terms, is that a Double DQN agent with a graph attention network can learn near-maximal conflict-free job allocations without any supervision. On the three test collections the trained GNN attains mean approximation ratios of 0.989 on the Planny hospital data, 0.981 on Erdős–Rényi graphs, and 0.999 on Barabási–Albert graphs, while the greedy baseline attains 0.987, 0.962, and 1.000 respectively; out-of-distribution models also reach or exceed the greedy baseline on unseen datasets and scale to larger Erdős–Rényi instances. The paper interprets these results as evidence that reward-driven trial and error, combined with graph-structured representation learning, is a viable route to optimizing job allocation and related combinatorial scheduling problems.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a job can be assigned to every qualified person at once, with no constraint that each job is performed only once; without that premise the problem no longer separates into per-person maximum-independent-set subproblems, and the MDP transition and the reported approximation ratios no longer apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported ratios hold, a single trained graph network could assign jobs in real time on a hospital ward without re-solving an optimization problem for each new request set.
  • The reward-only recipe (no labels, a reward of 1 per valid assignment) can be applied to other constraint problems expressible as bipartite-plus-conflict graphs, such as nurse rostering or room allocation.
  • The out-of-distribution results imply a model trained on one set of hospitals or jobs could be transferred to another site with different numbers of people, jobs, and conflict densities.
  • Because the formulation decomposes into per-person maximum independent set problems, the learned Q-values effectively solve a family of maximum independent set instances, so the architecture is a candidate for structured MIS learning.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The formalization as written imposes no capacity constraint on jobs, so each job can be assigned to every connected person; enforcing 'each job is done once' would require a different transition function and new experiments, and the reported ratios should not be read as evidence for that realistic variant.
  • On the Barabási–Albert data all methods are near-perfect (0.996–1.000), which suggests those instances are easy for the greedy heuristic; a harder, conflict-dense test would better reveal what the learned policy adds beyond greedy behavior.
  • The exploding Q-values reported in Appendix B indicate the network's absolute predictions are not calibrated even though the induced action ordering may be useful; a terminal-state bonus or shaped reward could stabilize training and improve transfer.
  • A baseline that runs a standard maximum-independent-set heuristic on each person's conflict neighborhood would quantify the contribution of the learned GNN representation; the paper does not include such a comparison.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a Job Allocation Problem (JAP) in which a maximum-cardinality set of person-job assignments is sought under per-person conflict constraints. It formulates the JAP as a Markov Decision Process and proposes a Double DQN agent whose Q-function is a Graph Attention Network with Context-Aware Embedding (CAE) modules. Experiments compare the GNN against greedy, random, and untrained baselines on synthetic Erdős–Rényi and Barabási–Albert graphs and on a real-world hospital dataset (Planny), including out-of-distribution tests. The abstract and conclusion claim that the GNN consistently outperforms baselines and generalizes well.

Significance. If the claims were rigorously established, the paper would provide a useful empirical demonstration of RL+GNN for graph-constrained allocation problems. The architecture design—splitting the graph into selection and conflict subgraphs and combining embeddings symmetrically—is clearly described, and the paper provides hyperparameters, dataset statistics, and out-of-distribution experiments, which are positive elements. However, the central formalization is internally inconsistent: the MDP transition does not enforce the feasibility constraint of the stated optimization problem. In addition, the problem as defined lacks any job-capacity constraint, so it does not match the motivating hospital scenario and decomposes into trivial per-person independent-set problems. Finally, the experimental evidence does not support the claim of consistent outperformance, and the paper itself reports unstable training. These are load-bearing issues, so the manuscript cannot be accepted in its current form.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4, transition function (Definition 3 and Algorithm 1)] The MDP transition defined in §4 and Algorithm 1 removes only outgoing conflict edges, so it does not enforce the feasibility constraint of Definition 2. With P={p0}, J={ja,jb}, S={{p0,ja},{p0,jb}}, and C={(ja,jb)}, selecting {p0,jb} first removes {p0,jb} and leaves {p0,ja}; the agent may then select {p0,ja}, yielding a final allocation containing both conflicting assignments for p0. This violates Definition 2 even though every step is allowed by the transition. Consequently, the policy learned and the approximation ratios reported in §6 evaluate a different problem from the one stated in Definition 2. Either C must be treated as symmetric (or closed under reversal) or the transition must also delete incoming conflict edges; the manuscript does neither.
  2. [Definitions 1 and 2] The formal problem places no constraint on how many people can be assigned the same job: a job j may appear in any number of selected edges {p,j}. For the motivating hospital (Planny) scenario, and for job allocation more generally, each job is a task that must be executed once by a single person. As stated, the JAP decomposes into independent maximum-independent-set problems on the conflict graph induced by each person's eligible jobs, so the objective is a sum of per-person optima. This is a substantially weaker problem than the intended allocation problem, and the paper neither states nor justifies the absence of a job-capacity constraint. The MDP, experiments, and conclusions all inherit this modeling choice.
  3. [§6.2, Table 1] The statement in §6.2 that the GNN 'demonstrates superior performance across each dataset' is not supported by the reported numbers. On Barabási–Albert, Greedy achieves 1.000 while the GNN reaches 0.999 ± 0.002; on Planny, the GNN's 0.989 ± 0.013 and Greedy's 0.987 ± 0.026 overlap well within one standard deviation. Only on Erdős–Rényi is the gap (0.981 vs 0.962) larger than the standard deviations. The abstract and conclusion overstate the evidence for consistent outperformance.
  4. [Appendix B] Appendix B reports that the training loss explodes (Fig. 6) and that the normalized Q-values are not monotonically decreasing (Fig. 7), then asserts without further evidence that the model 'was still able to learn a good order of states'. Since Double DQN and PER were introduced precisely to stabilize training, this admitted instability is a serious concern for the validity of the learned Q-function. Moreover, the high approximation ratios of the Random baseline (0.969 on Planny, 0.996 on Barabási–Albert) and of the Untrained GNN (0.999 on Barabási–Albert) suggest that the problem instances are not particularly challenging and that the reported GNN performance may not reflect a genuinely learned policy. The paper should provide convergence or validation evidence before attributing the results to learning.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Definition 3] The reward function is written as R: S × A → S; it should map to a real number, e.g., R: S × A × S → R or R: S × A → R.
  2. [Algorithm 1, line 18] The priority update uses |δi|, but δi is not defined in that loop; it should be |δk| from line 17.
  3. [§5.1] The sentence 'In this work, we utilize graph attention networks in this work since we are learning representations of edges' contains a redundant 'in this work'.
  4. [References] The reference to Bachlechner et al. (2020) has a garbled author list ('Huanru Henry Majumder, Bodhisattwa Prasad Mao' should be 'Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Henry Mao'); please correct it.
  5. [Figures 6 and 7] The plots in Figures 6 and 7 are described only in the text; please add axis labels and clarify what is plotted (e.g., training step vs loss, timestep vs normalized Q-value) to make them self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: performance claims are empirical comparisons on held-out instances, with no fitted constants or self-citation chain that the results reduce to.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: a GNN-based Double DQN policy achieves the reported approximation ratios on synthetic and Planny hospital instances (Sec. 6.2). These ratios are measured against baselines (Greedy, Random, Untrained GNN) on test instances sampled from the same generators or from different-size/density OOD settings; they are not derived by substituting fitted parameters back into the definition of the objective. The only by-construction element is the reward function R=1 per assignment, which Definition 3 and Sec. 4 set as a modeling choice; no prediction is read out of that choice other than the intended cardinality of the allocation. The CAE combination rule Eq. (1) follows Bachlechner et al. (2020) and the subgraph splitting follows Zhang et al. (2022); these are external citations, not self-citations, and they determine architecture rather than the reported outcome. There is no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' prior work and no fitted input relabeled as a prediction. The paper does contain a real internal correctness concern - the Sec. 4 transition only removes outgoing conflict edges while Definition 2 forbids conflicts in either direction - and the appendix admits the training loss explodes; however, an inconsistency between an MDP transition and a feasibility definition is a correctness or modeling flaw, not a circular derivation. Because no load-bearing step reduces by definition or self-citation to its inputs, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes an empirical ML pipeline; the ledger captures the hand-chosen architecture and training choices, the unstated assumption that jobs have no capacity, and the MDP reward equivalence. No physical entities are invented.

free parameters (3)
  • Number of CAE modules (K) = 3
    Hand chosen, no ablation; model capacity depends on it.
  • Hidden and output layer sizes = 16 and 8 neurons
    Hand chosen; no ablation or sensitivity analysis reported.
  • Training episodes and batch size = 200 episodes, batch 2048
    The training budget is unusually small and is load-bearing for whether the policy actually converged.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The JAP definition (Def. 1-2) has no per-job capacity constraint, so a job may be assigned to many people.
    The transition function in Sec. 4 only removes conflicting assignments for the chosen person; the paper never states that jobs are unique, and the real hospital setting likely requires uniqueness.
  • domain assumption Cumulative reward with +1 per step and γ=1 equals the size of the final allocation, so maximizing reward is equivalent to maximizing |A|.
    This is true by construction of the MDP, but it presupposes all assignments have equal value and the only objective is the count.
  • domain assumption A GAT-based Q-network with the CAE module and Double DQN can approximate Q* well enough to rank actions.
    The paper provides no convergence guarantee and the appendix shows exploding loss; the policy quality is only supported by the experimental tables.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimizing Job Allocation using Reinforcement Learning with Graph Neural Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TY4IFCEL

@misc{pith2026250119063,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimizing Job Allocation using Reinforcement Learning with Graph Neural Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TY4IFCEL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.19063}
}
read the original abstract

Efficient job allocation in complex scheduling problems poses significant challenges in real-world applications. In this report, we propose a novel approach that leverages the power of Reinforcement Learning (RL) and Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) to tackle the Job Allocation Problem (JAP). The JAP involves allocating a maximum set of jobs to available resources while considering several constraints. Our approach enables learning of adaptive policies through trial-and-error interactions with the environment while exploiting the graph-structured data of the problem. By leveraging RL, we eliminate the need for manual annotation, a major bottleneck in supervised learning approaches. Experimental evaluations on synthetic and real-world data demonstrate the effectiveness and generalizability of our proposed approach, outperforming baseline algorithms and showcasing its potential for optimizing job allocation in complex scheduling problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.19063 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of the problem instance. We have individuals represented by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of a transition (st, at, rt, st+1) in the MDP. When action {p0, j0} is picked, its edge and the edge between p0 and j1, which conflicts with j0, are removed from the graph in st+1 (depicted as transparent edges). An example of a transition of the model can be seen in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the model architecture. First, a job allocation graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of the Context-Aware Embedding Module. Given a graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Out-of-distribution performance of the algorithms when tweaking the individual parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Exploding loss over the training of a GNN agent. In order to gain insights into the results of the model after training, we look at two figures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Maximum normalized estimated Q-values from a trained GNN agent over sequential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Layer normalization

    Jimmy Lei Ba, Jamie Ryan Kiros, and Geoffrey E Hinton. Layer normalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.06450, 2016

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Cottrell, and Julian McAuley

    Thomas Bachlechner, Huanru Henry Majumder, Bodhisattwa Prasad Mao, Garrison W. Cottrell, and Julian McAuley. Rezero is all you need: Fast convergence at large depth. In arXiv, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.04887

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Cool job allocation: Measuring the power savings of placing jobs at cooling-efficient locations in the data center

    Cullen Bash and George Forman. Cool job allocation: Measuring the power savings of placing jobs at cooling-efficient locations in the data center. In USENIX Annual Technical Conference, volume 138, page 140, 2007

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    The state of the art of nurse rostering

    Edmund K Burke, Patrick De Causmaecker, Greet Vanden Berghe, and Hendrik Van Landeghem. The state of the art of nurse rostering. Journal of scheduling, 7: 0 441--499, 2004

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    Combinatorial optimization and reasoning with graph neural networks

    Quentin Cappart, Didier Ch \'e telat, Elias B Khalil, Andrea Lodi, Christopher Morris, and Petar Velickovic. Combinatorial optimization and reasoning with graph neural networks. In IJCAI, pages 4348--4355, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    A research survey: review of flexible job shop scheduling techniques

    Imran Ali Chaudhry and Abid Ali Khan. A research survey: review of flexible job shop scheduling techniques. International Transactions in Operational Research, 23 0 (3): 0 551--591, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    A gnn-based supervised learning framework for resource allocation in wireless iot networks

    Tianrui Chen, Xinruo Zhang, Minglei You, Gan Zheng, and Sangarapillai Lambotharan. A gnn-based supervised learning framework for resource allocation in wireless iot networks. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 9 0 (3): 0 1712--1724, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Heuristics from nature for hard combinatorial optimization problems

    Alberto Colorni, Marco Dorigo, Francesco Maffioli, Vittorio Maniezzo, GIOVANNI Righini, and Marco Trubian. Heuristics from nature for hard combinatorial optimization problems. International Transactions in Operational Research, 3 0 (1): 0 1--21, 1996

    work page 1996

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Combinatorial optimization models for production scheduling in automated manufacturing systems

    Yves Crama. Combinatorial optimization models for production scheduling in automated manufacturing systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 99 0 (1): 0 136--153, 1997

    1997

  2. [10]

    Exact combinatorial optimization with graph convolutional neural networks

    Maxime Gasse, Didier Ch \'e telat, Nicola Ferroni, Laurent Charlin, and Andrea Lodi. Exact combinatorial optimization with graph convolutional neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Gaussian error linear units (gelus)

    Dan Hendrycks and Kevin Gimpel. Gaussian error linear units (gelus). arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.08415, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Supervised learning linear priority dispatch rules for job-shop scheduling

    Helga Ingimundardottir and Thomas Philip Runarsson. Supervised learning linear priority dispatch rules for job-shop scheduling. In International conference on learning and intelligent optimization, pages 263--277. Springer, 2011

    2011

  5. [13]

    Reinforcement learning: A survey

    Leslie Pack Kaelbling, Michael L Littman, and Andrew W Moore. Reinforcement learning: A survey. Journal of artificial intelligence research, 4: 0 237--285, 1996

    1996

  6. [14]

    Reinforcement learning applications to machine scheduling problems: a comprehensive literature review

    Behice Meltem Kayhan and Gokalp Yildiz. Reinforcement learning applications to machine scheduling problems: a comprehensive literature review. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, pages 1--25, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Job allocation schemes for mobile service robots in hospitals

    Bikram Kumar, Lokesh Sharma, and Shih-Lin Wu. Job allocation schemes for mobile service robots in hospitals. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), pages 1323--1326. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Pomo: Policy optimization with multiple optima for reinforcement learning

    Yeong-Dae Kwon, Jinho Choo, Byoungjip Kim, Iljoo Yoon, Youngjune Gwon, and Seungjai Min. Pomo: Policy optimization with multiple optima for reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 0 21188--21198, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Relaxation heuristics for a generalized assignment problem

    Luiz Antonio N Lorena and Marcelo G Narciso. Relaxation heuristics for a generalized assignment problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 91 0 (3): 0 600--610, 1996

    1996

  10. [18]

    Decoupled weight decay regularization

    Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Applications of deep learning and reinforcement learning to biological data

    Mufti Mahmud, Mohammed Shamim Kaiser, Amir Hussain, and Stefano Vassanelli. Applications of deep learning and reinforcement learning to biological data. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 29 0 (6): 0 2063--2079, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning

    Volodymyr Mnih, Koray Kavukcuoglu, David Silver, Andrei A Rusu, Joel Veness, Marc G Bellemare, Alex Graves, Martin Riedmiller, Andreas K Fidjeland, Georg Ostrovski, et al. Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning. nature, 518 0 (7540): 0 529--533, 2015

    2015

  13. [21]

    A new agents-based model for dynamic job allocation in manufacturing shopfloors

    Mohammad Owliya, Mozafar Saadat, Rachid Anane, and Mahbod Goharian. A new agents-based model for dynamic job allocation in manufacturing shopfloors. IEEE Systems Journal, 6 0 (2): 0 353--361, 2012

    2012

  14. [22]

    Schedulenet: Learn to solve multi-agent scheduling problems with reinforcement learning

    Junyoung Park, Sanjar Bakhtiyar, and Jinkyoo Park. Schedulenet: Learn to solve multi-agent scheduling problems with reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.03051, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Price-based user-optimal job allocation scheme for grid systems

    Satish Penmatsa and Anthony T Chronopoulos. Price-based user-optimal job allocation scheme for grid systems. In Proceedings 20th IEEE International Parallel & Distributed Processing Symposium, pages 8--pp. IEEE, 2006

    2006

  16. [24]

    Scheduling, volume 29

    Michael L Pinedo. Scheduling, volume 29. Springer, 2012

    2012

  17. [25]

    Survey of model-based reinforcement learning: Applications on robotics

    Athanasios S Polydoros and Lazaros Nalpantidis. Survey of model-based reinforcement learning: Applications on robotics. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 86 0 (2): 0 153--173, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Prioritized experience replay

    Tom Schaul, John Quan, Ioannis Antonoglou, and David Silver. Prioritized experience replay. arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.05952, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Combinatorial optimization with physics-inspired graph neural networks

    Martin JA Schuetz, J Kyle Brubaker, and Helmut G Katzgraber. Combinatorial optimization with physics-inspired graph neural networks. Nature Machine Intelligence, 4 0 (4): 0 367--377, 2022

    2022

  20. [28]

    Approximate algorithms scheduling parallelizable tasks

    John Turek, Joel L Wolf, and Philip S Yu. Approximate algorithms scheduling parallelizable tasks. In Proceedings of the fourth annual ACM symposium on Parallel algorithms and architectures, pages 323--332, 1992

    1992

  21. [29]

    Deep reinforcement learning with double q-learning

    Hado Van Hasselt, Arthur Guez, and David Silver. Deep reinforcement learning with double q-learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 30, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    Approximation algorithms, volume 1

    Vijay V Vazirani. Approximation algorithms, volume 1. Springer, 2001

    2001

  23. [31]

    Graph Attention Networks

    Petar Veli c kovi \' c , Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Li \` o , and Yoshua Bengio. Graph Attention Networks . International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=rJXMpikCZ

    2018

  24. [32]

    Framework for incorporating human factors into production and logistics systems

    Vivek Vijayakumar, Fabio Sgarbossa, W Patrick Neumann, and Ahmad Sobhani. Framework for incorporating human factors into production and logistics systems. International Journal of Production Research, 60 0 (2): 0 402--419, 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Learning scheduling policies for multi-robot coordination with graph attention networks

    Zheyuan Wang and Matthew Gombolay. Learning scheduling policies for multi-robot coordination with graph attention networks. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 5 0 (3): 0 4509--4516, 2020

    2020

  26. [34]

    Integer and combinatorial optimization, volume 55

    Laurence A Wolsey and George L Nemhauser. Integer and combinatorial optimization, volume 55. John Wiley & Sons, 1999

    1999

  27. [35]

    A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks

    Zonghan Wu, Shirui Pan, Fengwen Chen, Guodong Long, Chengqi Zhang, and S Yu Philip. A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 32 0 (1): 0 4--24, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    How powerful are graph neural networks?, 2019

    Keyulu Xu, Weihua Hu, Jure Leskovec, and Stefanie Jegelka. How powerful are graph neural networks?, 2019

    2019

  29. [37]

    It’s not what machines can learn, it’s what we cannot teach

    Gal Yehuda, Moshe Gabel, and Assaf Schuster. It’s not what machines can learn, it’s what we cannot teach. In International conference on machine learning, pages 10831--10841. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Learning to dispatch for job shop scheduling via deep reinforcement learning

    Cong Zhang, Wen Song, Zhiguang Cao, Jie Zhang, Puay Siew Tan, and Xu Chi. Learning to dispatch for job shop scheduling via deep reinforcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 0 1621--1632, 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Learning to search for job shop scheduling via deep reinforcement learning, 2022

    Cong Zhang, Wen Song, Zhiguang Cao, Jie Zhang, Puay Siew Tan, and Chi Xu. Learning to search for job shop scheduling via deep reinforcement learning, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Graph neural networks: A review of methods and applications

    Jie Zhou, Ganqu Cui, Shengding Hu, Zhengyan Zhang, Cheng Yang, Zhiyuan Liu, Lifeng Wang, Changcheng Li, and Maosong Sun. Graph neural networks: A review of methods and applications. AI open, 1: 0 57--81, 2020

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.