Aligning LLMs with Graph Neural Solvers for Combinatorial Optimization
arXiv:2603.27169v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent research has demonstrated the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs) in solving combinatorial optimization problems (COPs) by representing tasks and instances in natural language. However, purely language-based approaches struggle to accurately capture complex relational structures inherent in many COPs, rendering them less effective at addressing medium-sized or larger instances. To address these limitations, we propose AlignOPT, a novel approach that aligns LLMs with graph neural solvers to learn a more generalizable neural COP he — Shaodi Feng, Zhuoyi Lin, Yaoxin Wu, Haiyan Yin, Yan Jin, Senthilnath Jayavelu, Xun Xu
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Recent research has demonstrated the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs) in solving combinatorial optimization problems (COPs) by representing tasks and instances in natural language. However, purely language-based approaches struggle to accurately capture complex relational structures inherent in many COPs, rendering them less effective at addressing medium-sized or larger instances. To address these limitations, we propose AlignOPT, a novel approach that aligns LLMs with graph neural solvers to learn a more generalizable neural COP heuristic. Specifically, AlignOPT leverages the semantic understanding capabilities of LLMs to encode textual descriptions of COPs and their instances, while concurrently exploiting graph neural solvers to explicitly model the underlying graph structures of COP instances. Our approach facilitates a robust integration and alignment between linguistic semantics and structural representations, enabling more accurate and scalable COP solutions. Experimental results demonstrate that AlignOPT achieves state-of-the-art results across diverse COPs, underscoring its effectiveness in aligning semantic and structural representations. In particular, AlignOPT demonstrates strong generalization, effectively extending to previously unseen COP instances.
Comments: 18 pages, 3 figures
Subjects:
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2603.27169 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2603.27169v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.27169
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Submission history
From: Zhuoyi Lin [view email] [v1] Sat, 28 Mar 2026 07:07:56 UTC (188 KB)
Sign in to highlight and annotate this article

Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
researchpaperarxivOfcom: the share of adult UK social media users actively posting, sharing, or commenting falls to 49%, down from 61% in 2024, as users become more selective (Dan Milmo/The Guardian)
Dan Milmo / The Guardian : Ofcom: the share of adult UK social media users actively posting, sharing, or commenting falls to 49%, down from 61% in 2024, as users become more selective Ofcom research shows people also concerned old posts could affect personal or professional life Social media users in the UK
[R] Best way to tackle this ICML vague response?
Going through ICML submission for the first time. I had a reviewer ask for some things and during the rebuttal period I ran more experiments and answered all their questions (they wrote 3 weaknesses). Yesterday started the author-reviewer discussion period which ends on April 7. In their response to my rebuttal the reviewer wrote in one line that my "experiments greatly improved the paper" but "some details remain only partially clarified". That's it... They marked "Acknowledgement: (b) Partially resolved - I have follow-up questions for the authors." The ICML email state that I can "post up to one additional response to any further reviewer comments that are posted, as a reply to your rebuttal". But since the reviewers didn't actually write any follow up questions I have no idea how to ta
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
More in Research Papers
[R] Best way to tackle this ICML vague response?
Going through ICML submission for the first time. I had a reviewer ask for some things and during the rebuttal period I ran more experiments and answered all their questions (they wrote 3 weaknesses). Yesterday started the author-reviewer discussion period which ends on April 7. In their response to my rebuttal the reviewer wrote in one line that my "experiments greatly improved the paper" but "some details remain only partially clarified". That's it... They marked "Acknowledgement: (b) Partially resolved - I have follow-up questions for the authors." The ICML email state that I can "post up to one additional response to any further reviewer comments that are posted, as a reply to your rebuttal". But since the reviewers didn't actually write any follow up questions I have no idea how to ta




Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!