curl -X GET 'https://api.solvice.io/v2/vrp/jobs/{job_id}/explanation' \
    -H 'Authorization: YOUR_API_KEY'

{
  "score": {
    "hardScore": 0,
    "mediumScore": 0,
    "softScore": -40,
    "feasible": true
  },
  "unresolved": [
    {
      "constraint": "TRAVEL_TIME",
      "score": "-40soft"
    }
  ]
}

​
Overview

The explanation endpoint helps you understand why the VRP solver made specific routing decisions. It provides:

  • Detailed breakdown of constraint violations and their impact on the solution score
  • Alternative routing scenarios for each job
  • Insights into why certain solutions are infeasible

Use explanations to debug infeasible solutions, optimize route quality, and provide transparency to end-users about routing decisions.

​
Basic Explanation

Every VRP solution includes a score that reflects the quality of the routing plan. The explanation endpoint breaks down this score by constraint.

​
Request a Simple Explanation

After solving a VRP problem, retrieve the explanation using:

curl -X GET 'https://api.solvice.io/v2/vrp/jobs/{job_id}/explanation' \
    -H 'Authorization: YOUR_API_KEY'

​
Understanding the Response

{
  "score": {
    "hardScore": 0,
    "mediumScore": 0,
    "softScore": -40,
    "feasible": true
  },
  "unresolved": [
    {
      "constraint": "TRAVEL_TIME",
      "score": "-40soft"
    }
  ]
}
​
score
object
required

Overall solution quality metrics.

​
unresolved
array

List of constraints contributing to the score.

​
Alternative Positions Analysis

Enable alternative position analysis to explore what-if scenarios for job routing. This feature evaluates all possible positions for each job and explains why certain placements were rejected.

​
Enable Alternative Analysis

Set explanationOptions.enabled to true in your solve request:

{
  "resources": [...],
  "jobs": [...],
  "options": {
    "explanationOptions": {
      "enabled": true
    }
  }
}

Computing alternatives increases processing time. Only enable when you need detailed routing analysis.

​
Alternative Position Response

The explanation now includes alternative positions for each job:

{
  "score": {
    "hardScore": 0,
    "softScore": -40,
    "feasible": true
  },
  "alternatives": {
    "job2": [
      {
        "job": "job2",
        "resource": "worker1",
        "suggestedArrival": "2023-01-01T09:00:34",
        "latestArrival": "2023-01-01T09:00:34",
        "executedAfter": "worker12023-01-01",
        "score": {
          "hardScore": -639,
          "softScore": -39,
          "feasible": false
        },
        "violations": [
          {
            "constraint": "DATE_TIME_WINDOW_CONFLICT",
            "score": "-639hard"
          }
        ]
      }
    ]
  }
}

Each alternative position includes:

​
suggestedArrival
timestamp
required

Proposed arrival time at the job location.

​
latestArrival
timestamp
required

Latest possible arrival time while maintaining schedule feasibility.

​
executedAfter
string
required

Identifier of the preceding job or trip start in this scenario.

​
violations
array

List of constraints violated in this alternative scenario.

​
Practical Example

Let’s analyze a routing scenario with time window constraints:

1

Define the problem

Create a VRP request with two jobs and tight time windows:

VRP Request
{
  "resources": [
    {
      "name": "worker1",
      "start": {
        "latitude": 51.056,
        "longitude": 3.7267
      },
      "shifts": [{
        "from": "2023-01-01T09:00:00",
        "to": "2023-01-01T20:00:00"
      }]
    }
  ],
  "jobs": [
    {
      "name": "job1",
      "location": {
        "latitude": 51.0541,
        "longitude": 3.7227
      },
      "duration": 1800,
      "windows": [{
        "from": "2023-01-01T09:00:00",
        "to": "2023-01-01T09:20:00",
        "hard": true
      }]
    },
    {
      "name": "job2",
      "location": {
        "latitude": 51.0538,
        "longitude": 3.7233
      },
      "duration": 1800,
      "windows": [{
        "from": "2023-01-01T09:00:00",
        "to": "2023-01-01T20:00:00",
        "hard": true
      }]
    }
  ]
}
2

Analyze the solution

The solver finds a feasible solution where job1 (with the tighter time window) is served first:

Solution
{
  "score": {
    "hardScore": 0,
    "softScore": -40,
    "feasible": true
  },
  "trips": [{
    "visits": [
      {
        "arrival": "2023-01-01T09:00:35",
        "job": "job1"
      },
      {
        "arrival": "2023-01-01T09:30:40",
        "job": "job2"
      }
    ]
  }]
}
3

Review alternatives

The explanation reveals why job2 cannot be served first:

Alternative Analysis
{
  "alternatives": {
    "job2": [{
      "suggestedArrival": "2023-01-01T09:00:34",
      "violations": [{
        "constraint": "DATE_TIME_WINDOW_CONFLICT",
        "score": "-639hard"
      }]
    }]
  }
}

Job1’s narrow time window (09:00-09:20) would be violated if job2 were served first, making this alternative infeasible.

​
Common Constraint Types

Understanding constraint violations helps you improve your routing solutions:

​
Best Practices

​
Next Steps