Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 23, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
The job shop scheduling problem is a challenging combinatorial optimization problem, and recent reinforcement learning approaches using graph neural networks have shown promise for learning scheduling policies directly from problem instances. However, training on large instances remains computationally expensive, and generalization across instance sizes remains challenging. This paper studies curriculum learning for graph neural network-based reinforcement learning in the job shop scheduling problem by comparing it with single-size training across three target sizes: 20 x 20, 25 x 25, and 30 x 30. In the curriculum setting, the policy is first trained on smaller instances and then progressively adapted to larger target sizes, allowing scheduling behavior learned in earlier stages to support learning on larger instances. Models are evaluated on unseen instances from 8 x 8 to 30 x 30 using the optimality gap, considering both generalization across all evaluation sizes and specialization on the target size. Results show that curriculum learning consistently reduces wall-clock training time, with larger benefits as the target size increases. The strongest advantage is observed at 30 x 30, where curriculum learning reduces the mean optimality gap across all evaluation sizes by approximately 8.1 percentage points, reduces the target-size mean optimality gap by approximately 8.6 percentage points, and saves approximately 50 hours of training time.