MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971938577 · doi:10.1287/moor.2013.0597

An Approximation Algorithm for the Bipartite Traveling Tournament Problem

2013· article· en· W1971938577 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Hoshino, Ken‐ichi Kawarabayashi

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics of Operations Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScheduling and Timetabling Solutions
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTournamentBipartite graphTravelling salesman problemMathematicsScheduleApproximation algorithmScheduling (production processes)Mathematical optimizationCombinatoricsLeagueSequence (biology)Computer scienceGraph

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The bipartite traveling tournament problem (BTTP) is an NP-complete scheduling problem whose solution is a double round-robin inter-league tournament with minimum total travel distance. The 2n-team BTTP is a variant of the well-known traveling salesman problem (TSP), albeit much harder as it involves the simultaneous coordination of 2n teams playing a sequence of home and away games under fixed constraints, rather than a single entity passing through the locations corresponding to the teams' home venues. As the BTTP requires a distance-optimal schedule linking venues in close proximity, we provide an approximation algorithm for the BTTP based on an approximate solution to the corresponding TSP. We prove that our polynomial-time algorithm generates a 2n-team inter-league tournament schedule whose total distance is at most 1 + 2c/3 + (3 − c)/(3n) times the total distance of the optimal BTTP solution, where c is the approximation factor of the TSP. In practice, the actual approximation factor is far better; we provide a specific example by generating a nearly-optimal inter-league tournament for the 30-team National Basketball Association, with total travel distance just 1.06 times the trivial theoretical lower bound.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.352
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.157 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematics of Operations ResearchSame topicScheduling and Timetabling SolutionsFrench-language works237,207